I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."

The Clause is in execution of a pledge which I gave in Committee. If hon. Members will refer to Sub-section (4) of Clause 1 they will see that that forms the first paragraph in my new Clause, which in addition provides that for the purpose of the application of the provisions of the Act, other than those relating to expenses under Section 16 of the principal Act, the county council shall be the authority for the county of London, to the exclusion of any other authority, except that in the City, in accordance with the existing Statutes, the Common Council of the City will be the local authority for the purposes of Clauses 5 and 6, which I think is the only proper way of allotting the functions under this Bill in London. The borough councils will still remain the local authorities in regard to the Sections relating to the conversion of houses, as heretofore.

I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for making this proposal to meet the point I raised in Committee, but I am sorry to say that as it stands it does not satisfy either the London County Council or the City Corporation. The City Corporation is the authority under Part III. of the principal Act, whereas under this proviso their powers will be limited to the prohibition of certain building operations and the prohibition of the demolition of dwelling-houses.

No; it does not take away from them any of their powers under Part III. It simply prescribes the authority for the purposes of this Act.

We have had very little time to consider this, but neither of the authorities at present are quite satisfied with it. I would suggest that my right hon. Friend will not necessarily consider this the final word in the matter. There is complete agreement on the subject, and it is only a question of getting appropriate words. The advisers of the two bodies are not satisfied with the present words, and I hope my right hon. Friend will, therefore, not preclude the possibility of reconsideration in the House of Lords.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause accordingly read a second time, and added to the Bill.

The proposed new Clause in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Bury (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness) — [Exemption from Rating] —deals with the law of rating, and exempts certain people from rating, and would impose rates on others. This cannot be done on the Report stage. A second Clause in the name of the same hon. and gallant Gentleman—[Increment Value and Reversion Duties]—is really beyond the scope of the Bill, and amends the Finance Act, and should therefore come under Amendments to the Finance Act.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "constructing," to insert the words "or enlarging."

The effect of this would be to enable subsidies to be given for the purpose of enlarging as well as of constructing houses. I would point out that the details of how this money is to be given will entirely rest with the Ministry of Health. I move this addition in the interests of rural housing. It is a well known fact that many of the rural houses, especially in Scotland, consist of two and even one room, and even if there are three rooms there is no scullery. Under the principal Act it is laid down that all new houses should have at least three apartments, and that there should be a scullery, coal cellar, and bathroom. I suggest that if a subsidy is granted to assist in the enlarging of houses it will be a real economy. At the present moment it costs practically as much to put in, as an addition to a house, scullery and bathroom as in pre-war times it cost to build a completely new house. I especially put in the word "enlarging"; at first I thought of "reconstructing," but that was open to the obvious objection that it might include repairs. I do not suggest that any assistance should be given for repairs, of coarse, but I do suggest that where an old house can be enlarged by the addition of bathroom and scullery, and brought up to the modern standard which we believe in now, it would be an economy to allow a subsidy to be granted for this purpose. It cannot be an objection that it would take away money from creating new houses, because the decision as to what amount is to be granted for enlarging and what for new construction would entirely be left to the discretion of the Ministry of Health in the Regulations which they may issue. In both the English and Scottish Housing Acts there is a danger that rural housing will not be adequately dealt with, and even this Bill as it stands will not materially assist the problem of housing in rural districts. I think that this Amendment, which would only refer to new apartments being added to existing houses, would materially help the problem.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I hope the Government will not accept this Amendment, because every one of the arguments which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has put forward in favour of it, seems to me to be directly against any reason for accepting it. This Bill is a purely temporary measure designed to construct as many new houses as possible. Of course, if tins Amendment were passed, the obvious temptation would be to those who are in possession of old houses to take advantage of this provision, instead of building new houses, which would defeat the object of this Bill, which is to get new houses. I cannot imagine a more destructive Amendment.

My hon. and gallant Friend said, in the course of his remarks, that it would make no difference so far as the expenditure of money is concerned, but I think that is the whole point. Whatever money would be spent in these operations of en-larging—a very elastic term, by the way—would be taken from the fund, which is a very limited one, available for new houses. The whole object of this measure is, during a temporary period, to assist in the addition of new houses throughout the country, and I trust the hon. and gallant Gentleman, on reflection, will consider it wiser to withdraw the Amendment.

Really I do not think the answer of the hon. Gentleman is at all satisfactory. He says the object of this Bill is the construction of new houses. Surely that is a mere pedantic way of looking at it. The object is to increase the housing accommodation of the country, and if that can be done by enlarging houses, which are too small, or by adapting other buildings, it is as great an advantage to the country as building new houses.

There are many old houses vastly better than the new, or anything that is likely to be put up for many a year to come, and some of these old houses, by an enlargement, which might only mean the addition of an approach, could be made suitable for flats. I certainly think that, having regard to everything that is going on, to exclude these from the purview of the Bill would be a mistake. Speaking for the district I have the honour to represent, very considerable alteration is going on there in the old houses of a quite solid type, well built and with many years of life in them. I certainly think these are the houses fit to Adapt for working classes, and I certainly think we ought not to exclude from the purview of this Bill the possibility of dealing with them.

I would like to support what the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pratt) has said. Anyone who knows anything about building is fully aware that in any reconstruction of a house, considerably more time is taken to do the work than to do similar work in connection with a new house, and that means, therefore, that labour will be, absorbed where it ought not to be absorbed. There is something more. This would be a direct encouragement to people with very old houses to make application to the Ministry of Health for assistance in the reconstruction of houses that ought to have been knocked down a considerable time ago.

I really cannot understand why the Minister of Health resists this Amendment, because it would involve no compalsion, but would still require schemes to be made in accordance with the directions of the Ministry. I think the hon. Gentleman is looking at the matter with undue misgiving. He surely could provide, in framing these schemes, that no abuse of this discretion could be possible, and that some subvention for enlarging houses should only be given in those cases where it is really in the public interest. I do hope he will reconsider the matter.

So far as I can see, it is quite obvious that you have only a limited amount of money for housing. The main object, as I understand it, is to provide the largest possible amount of really first-class housing accommodation for the working classes. It is surely better to enlarge and reconstruct two or three bad houses so that they are thoroughly sound, healthy houses, and to spend a definite amount of money on the reconstruction, than to build one new house. I hope the Minister will seriously consider this. We want to reorganise and reconstitute the whole of the housing problem in this country. If it can be done by improving existing houses, and making them more habitable and better, surely that is the most economical way of spending money in a district, and it ought to be possible for the Minister to allow it.

I think my hon. Friends have really lost sight of the object of the Bill as a whole. I could not possibly accept this Amendment. We want this Bill to provide additional houses. That is the governing object. Under the existing Housing Act, so tar as the local authorities are concerned, they are able to obtain assistance financially for taking over, reconstructing and adapting houses. But, so far as this Bill is concerned, it would be a direct encouragement to private individuals all over the country to make applications for patching up houses which, if they are worth it as commercial propositions, should not be in need of patching up. There are a large number of unsatisfactory houses in London which have been empty for a long time, and relatively a small proportion of them in many districts are really good houses, and we meant additional good houses. I would ask the House to keep to the principal purpose of the Bill, which would be deflected enormously if anything of this kind were put in.

I hope my hon. and gallant Friend who moved the Amendment will insist on going to a Division, because I cannot help thinking that the few remarks by the right hon. Gentleman to which we have just listened showed a de- plorable inability to realise what is in the minds of those who support this Amendment. He says that we want to have additional good houses. We all want that. We want them as rapidly as possible. It is only because we think that, under this Amendment, we are doing something to facilitate that work that I for one hope my hon. Friend will press it to a Division. The right hon. Gentleman, as I understood him, said it has always been for the local authority to reconstruct houses. With all respect to him, this does not meet the case that has been pressed. I urge very strongly that he should reconsider his point of view on this ground: that we should not get these houses really built if we are to adhere to pedantic bureaucracy.

I do not want to support pedantic bureaucracy—whatever that may mean. All I want is to get additional good houses. That is not bureaucracy, but common sense.

I do not think that my right hon. Friend is quite entitled to deny the charge of pedantic bureaucracy in view of past history. It is entirely optional for him, under Clause I, to make what schemes he likes. All we want to give him is optional power which, in the opinion of many hon. Members, will help him in, the task he has in hand.

I desire to support this for the following reasons. You very often get into a district like, say, Pottinger, where the houses are very close to the large works. One of the essential things is that the men should be as close as possible to their work. I, therefore, think that it is a most desirable thing, if you have houses close to works, which can be improved, that power should be given to improve them.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 21; Noes, 90.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (2, a), after the word "acre," to insert the words "minimum floor area."

The right hon. Gentleman was good enough yesterday to accept an amended Amendment to Sub-section (a) of Clause 1 requiring that the conditions for subsidised houses should be somewhat similar to those provided for in the Manual. The words inserted were "standards of structural stability and sanitation." It seems to me that those words might be construed to refer simply to the strength of the walls, and not have regard to the floor area and the cubic capacity which, of course, is the test as to the value of the rooms and the houses. If the right hon. Gentleman will put in the words "minimum floor area" that will meet my point. In the White Paper I notice the minimum superficial area may be 700 feet, whereas if you take the manual the smallest superficial area is 1,000 square feet, and that shows a very great difference between the two standards. The standard of 700 feet superficial area gives the floor space of 16 feet by 21 feet as compared with a floor area on the two floors of 20 feet by 25 feet, which is the minimum provided in the Manual.

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is most anxious that no inferior standard of house building should be permitted in the case of these subsidised houses. I submit, with all respect, that in a matter of this sort, seeing that the House has no control over the White Paper, it is important that we should decide the issue and say plainly and emphatically that the standard of houses to be subsidised shall not be of a lower standard than those provided in the Manual. In the Manual a bathroom is required for all urban houses, but, according to the White Paper, no reference is made to the bathroom at all. There was an Amendment moved in Committee dealing with this point, and I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he would see that a bathroom was provided. It is in Order that we should have the same high standard of comfort, amenity, and health in these subsidised houses as we have provided under the earlier schemes of the local authorities that I move this Amendment.

I raised this point as to the inadequacy of the floor space when the Bill was in Committee, because I think 700 ft. is totally inadequate for these cottages. The condition is that there shall be two bedrooms, and it was very strongly urged that no houses should be erected unless they had three bedrooms. I think we should have at least three bedrooms, and it is hardly worth while subsidising a house that has not got three bedrooms. I have not found myself in agreement with the Mover of this Amendment as a rule, because he has generally been opposite to my views on this subject, and consequently I am delighted now to think he has come round to my way of thinking. It is obvious that the floor space provided under the subsidy is not sufficient, and the 1,250 ft. maximum is not sufficient. We might just as well have the rooms a little larger, and you might provide that when you get over that they shall not have the subsidy. This is not going to put any expense either upon the Government or the taxpayer, but it is going to make all the difference in the comfort of the house, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to increase that 1,250 ft, maximum to at least 1,500 ft. The minimum of 700 ft. is not enough for three rooms, and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to accept my suggestion.

I took great pains during the Committee stage to meet my hon. Friend's views on this point. To put all these details into the Bill would be of no value. Taking the figures put in the White Paper I find that the figure of 920 ft. for a house with a living room, parlour, and three bedrooms was deliberately arranged so that it would be capable of providing the space for the different rooms set out on page 29 of the Ministry of Health Manual, and rooms of that size can be included in that floor space. The total of 920 ft. was inserted in order that it might be possible to do this. I think that does comply with what is wanted, and I have no intention whatever of going below that figure, which is the maximum. I do not think it is quite fair to alter this now, because I took a great deal of trouble to meet the point. I will, however, undertake that in the circular of conditions to be issued that where it is possible, and where the water supply is available in urban areas there shall be bathrooms. There is no intention of doing anything else, and we shall keep up the standard, but we must have a minimum. I have no intention of letting the scheme down in any way whatever, and I trust that we shall all do our duty in this respect.

A good many of the complaints which have been made are to the effect that the standards we have adopted are too high. I do ask the House not to saddle the Bill with detailed provisions of this kind. The figures in the White Paper were deliberately designed in order to provide the accommodation for this number of rooms. My hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Lorden) said that he did not want any houses with less than three bedrooms. I agree that the vast majority of houses certainly ought to have three bedrooms, and that is why we have made that our common standard, but we have allowed five per cent. of houses with two bedrooms, and I must adhere to that, because there are old people and so on who do not want three bedrooms, and you must have a small percentage with only two. There are a number of people who want only a small house, and we must include them in our survey of what is required. We want to keep up our standard, and I have no intention whatever of assenting to a large number of small houses, but we must have power to consider the needs of the locality and the inhabitants of the area. Everybody is not young, nor has everybody a growing family. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will accept this explanation and withdraw his Amendment.

The right lion. Gentleman has not dealt with the question of raising the maximum.

The hon. Member has exhausted his right to speak.

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon the speech that he has made. I am sure that he is well advised to leave himself as much elasticity as possible in framing these Regulations. I was rather alarmed to hear the speeches of certain lion. Members upon the subject of tenement buildings. You cannot avoid having tenement buildings in London. It is obviously ideal that people should live in the country, but there are a certain number of people who, for vocational reasons, are bound to live near their work. There are people who simply cannot stand continual travelling, and, if they go into the country, they have to come back and live in London. They have a right to be provided for. They cannot all have large tenements. In many cases they earn extremely low wages, and there are single people or married people without families. At the present time, owing to the demolition of a large amount of accommodation for factory and other industrial purposes, there is a very small supply of these small tenements. I quite agree that in principle it is more desirable to provide big tenements, but you have people who cannot pay the rent of the larger tenements, and others who, owing to their work, have not the time to keep them clean. It would therefore be a great mistake to put in any regulation about floor space or the number of rooms which would prevent the Ministry using their own discretion. You cannot have economical and cheap tenement buildings unless you are allowed a small number of these other sized dwellings. Very often you cannot, on a particular shaped site, fit in three and four room tenements, and unless you are going to have an inordinate proportion of your building represented by staircases, you must in exceptional cases be allowed to have a small proportion of this other type of dwelling. I therefore hope that the Minister of Health will resist all these invitations to tie his hand, and will insist upon having proper discretion left to the Ministry to deal with the matter.

As far as I can gather, the Amendment is being opposed on grounds not really relevant to it. Something was said about bathrooms. I think that my hon. Friend would have been better advised to have left that out. The Amendment does not raise the question of bathrooms at all. Some opposition was offered to the Amendment on the ground that it would exclude houses with two bedrooms. I understand that the local authorities may provide houses with two bedrooms at the present time, and this Amendment would not prevent them doing so, nor would it prevent the private builder putting up houses with two bedrooms. All it says is that if a private builder puts up a house it shall not have less floor area than the house of a public authority. That would be the sole effect of the Amendment, and I cannot understand why it should be resisted. It is not a small detail. It is not anything that can be described as metrieulous, like a scullery sink, or anything of that kind. It is a general provision. We have determined what shall be the total amount of ground occupied by each house, and this is a general provision laying down the floor area of the house. That area may be so arranged that there are two rooms, or it may be arranged, in ally other way. The Amendment prevents any house being erected under a subsidy with a less amount of floor area than must be provided in a house erected by a public authority, and, if it be resisted, it must convey the impression that it is the intention to allow houses to be erected under this subsidy with a less floor area than the houses erected by a public authority. If that be the intention, it would be better to express it. If it be not the intention, it would be a sound thing to put into the Bill something that would remove the suspicion and want of confidence which does exist with regard to this measure. The right hon. Gentleman has resisted any Amendment which would have had the effect of reducing that suspicion.

I have remodelled the whole Clause to meet your point.

This very material point is not dealt with in this Clause. Its omission makes it possible for the house erected under this subsidy to have a less floor area than that erected by a public authority.

May I support what has been said? Anyone reading the Subsection as it stands, would say, "Here are three things insisted upon." With regard to three standards, these subsidised houses have to come up to the same level as the local authority houses. Those standards are number per acre, structural stability, and sanitation. There are four things important with regard to a house. Those three and minimum floor area. We all agree that the Minister does not want these houses to fall to any lower standard than the houses to be built by the local authority. What, then, is the reason why he cannot accept this Amendment? If you put in these three definite things that have been put in, and you omit the other thing which is really of major ruling importance, namely, the floor area, it must be assumed, and I think it would be read by any lawyer to assume, that you are not going to insist upon a high standard in regard to that fourth important thing as you are in regard to the other three things. We all agree that floor area does matter, and I cannot see why it should not be stated that these subsidised houses should reach the same standard with regard to floor area as the other houses.

:I wish to support what has been said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness) as to the necessity for small tenements. There are thousands of people, single women and widowers without children, who can afford to pay no more than for one room with a scullery attached, such as is supplied in numerous tenements in London by the Guinness Trust and also by the Sam Lewis Trust. These tenements are most excellent; they are sanitary and healthy. The death rate in the Guinness Trust houses in 1918 was remarkably low, much lower than the average death rate in London, and the same may be said in relation to similar tenements in my own Constituency in Glasgow.

While I agree it is necessary to have these small tenements, we must remember that suitable accommodation must also be provided for families in which there are four or five children.

I think the hon. Members who set so much store by two-bedroom houses do not realise that this Amendment does not deal with that particular phase of the question, but is simply confined to the point that all subsidised houses must conform to the same standard as the houses which are being put up by local authorities. If you are going to say to the private builder you will give him a subsidy and allow him to put up houses which in the matter of floor-space area are on a lower standard than the houses which local authorities are permitted to put up, and which you would not allow the local authorities to put up, then I say you will be adopting a principle which is entirely wrong. With regard to what has been said about the need for small tenements we all agree, but that is not the Amendment before the House, and I hope that the Government will agree to accept this proposal and not let it go forth that they are giving subsidies to private builders for putting up houses of a lower standard than they allow local authorities to erect.

I want to know what would be the effect of this Amendment. Is there any provision at the present moment in the right hon. Gentleman's Housing Manual under which, with his approval, two-roomed tenements or one-roomed tenements such as are desired by my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness) can be put up? I confess I feel great difficulty in voting for an Amendment which, in the case of this subsidy would allow private builders more latitude than is given to local authorities.

The Manual which I have here is for the guidance of the authorities. It lays down the standard as to floor area, and it has been issued merely for the purposes of guidance. It is laid down without a minimum, and, of course, we have allowed local authorities in various cases to make departures within reasonable limits from this standard. We examine all schemes in the light of the standard, and there is no intention of laying down a minimum which cannot be departed from.

Would it be agreeable to the right hon. Gentleman if the word "minimum" were left out from the Amendment, so that it will read that the floor area for subsidised houses shall be the same as the general standard laid down in the Manual? This would put the question of area, structure, and conditions on the same basis in all cases of subsidised houses.

No; I cannot agree to that, because the Manual is not an Act of Parliament; it is a document which we have issued simply for the general guidance of the authorities.

And equally applicable to all.

Yes. But I cannot treat it as something which has statutory effect. It is simply issued for the guidance of the local authorities.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not prepared to accept the same standard for all?

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: In Sub-section (2, c), after the word "refusal" ["any person aggrieved by the refusal "], insert the words "or neglect."—[Dr. Addisort.]

An Amendment has been handed in to add the words "and which are self-contained." I do not propose to call upon the hon. Member to move that, because we have already decided the principle. The Amendment seems to be unnecessary, and it also is indifferent grammar.

Further Amendments made: In Sub-section (3), leave out the word "to" ["shall not apply to any houses"], and insert instead thereof the words "in respect of."

Leave out Sub-section (4). — [Dr. Addison.]

I beg to move, in Subsection (2), after the word "may" ["under this section may appeal"] to insert the words, "subject to rules of procedure to be made by the Minister."

This Amendment authorises the Minister to prescribe the rules of procedure in respect to the hearing of appeals. It is clear that rules will have to be prescribed limiting the time in which appeals will have to be made, the order of their being made and so forth. We have accepted au appeal tribunal, and it follows necessarily that some rules must be issued for the guidance of persons appealing to the tribunal.

Will there be any opportunity fox the House to consider these rules of procedure? Will the rules, in accordance with the usual practice, be laid on the Table for a certain number of days so that if they are found to be undesirable the House may have an opportunity of revising them?

These are rules made by local authorities, and I do not suppose the hon. and learned Member suggests that they should be laid on the Table.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert

"(3) Where any appeal against an Order made under this Section is not finally determined within fourteen days after the date on which notice of appeal against the Order was given, the operation of the Order shall be suspended as from the expiration of the said fourteen days until the appeal has been finally determined."

This Amendment is to provide that a time limit must be imposed for the determination of an appeal. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) asked whether in the event of an order being made preventing a man from going on with his building, he would be the subject of penalties if he continued to build during the hearing of the appeal. That is a very important question. I am advised that he would. In order not to hold a man up in an unfair manner this Amendment is moved. The Amendment provides that after the lapse of a fortnight, if the appeal has not been determined, it would not be illegal for the man to continue his operations. He would be unduly penalised in the event of a long delay occurring, and in the event of the appeal then being granted he would suffer severe financial loss thereby. This Amendment puts a limit to the delay.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in Subsection (4), to leave out the words "due fulfilment of the contract was rendered impossible by reason of," and to insert instead thereof the words "the non-fulfilment of the contract was due to compliance with."

This Amendment is moved to meet a point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Warrington (Mr. Harold smith). He raised some objection to the words in the Sub-section which, on review, my legal advisers think a valid objection. The Clause will now be brought into proper form and in accord with the decisions of the Courts. The Amendment provides that it would be a good defence to an action to prove that the non-fulfilment of the contract was due to compliance with an order made under this Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In Subsection (4), leave out the words "having been" ["an Order having been made"]. —[Dr. Addison.]

I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert the words

"Any Rules of Procedure made by the Minister under this Section shall be laid on the Table of the House for twenty-one days."

Under an Amendment just made we lave inserted the words" subject to Rules of Procedure to be made by the Minister." As that is an executive act of the Minister, and as the effect of the Rules may be serious, I suggest that it ought to be within the competence of this House to consider those Rules and, if necessary, to amend or reject them. That is the usual practice in regard to Rules of Procedure before tribunals. It would obviously not be right to allow a Minister, however respected, by inadvertence or otherwise, to make rules which might turn out to be very objectionable in character and inadequate to the necessities of the case. I therefore urge upon my right hon. Friend that it would be right to lay those rules so that they might be considered by the House.

I beg to second the Amendment.

Subject to being able to review these words in another place, if necessary, I do not think we have any particular objection to them. These, of course, are rules under which people may prohibit a building of a non-essential kind. If it is found on examination that this Amendment would involve delay in putting into execution the powers of this Clause where it was really necessary, then I must reserve the right to add words to obviate that. That is only fair. It is conceivable that in some cases luxury building will have to be stopped fairly promptly-and this Amendment might cause delay in those cases. Subject to that reservation I accept the Amendment.

I am much obliged. I have no desire to cause any delay, but rather the contrary.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, at the end, to insert the words

"and where the person guilty of an offence under this Section is a company every director and officer of the company shall be guilty of the like offence unless he proves that the act constituting the offence took place without his consent or connivance."

This is to rectify an omission in the Clause as originally drafted, so as to include within it directors or officers of companies, in cases where it is proposed to demolish dwellings. It is a repetition of words in a previous Clause, so as to make it applicable in their case.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, after the words last added, to insert the words

In this Section the expression "dwelling. house" means a building constructed or adapted to be used wholly or principally for human habitation."

These words are designed to meet the case of hotels or other places which have been adapted for habitation but which are pot ordinarily described as dwellings.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "authority" ["a local authority may"], to insert the words including a county council."

This is in order to make it clear that a county council is a local authority for the purposes of this Bill. It may be that a county council is not the housing authority under the Housing Acts except for special purposes, and it is necessary to insert these words here.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "land" ["purchase and develop any land"], to insert the words "not being land forming part of any common."

This is moved on behalf of the Commons Preservation Society, which entertains fear that under this Clause the Minister may possibly be empowered to acquire, incidentally, common land. I know it is not my right hon. Friend's intention at all that the Bill should apply to such land, but it is desired by those who are interested in the preservation of commons that it should be made quite clear what the meaning of the Clause is. There can be no doubt that although my right hon. Friend has no nefarious designs upon commons, some day another Minister might sit in his place and might find a pretext for taking such land on the ground that it was obviously not expressly excluded. I have handed in an alternative Amendment to insert the words "and subject to Section 73 of the Housing and Town Planning Act, 1909." The insertion of either of the Amendments would make it quite certain that common land cannot be appropriated for the purposes of this Clause. Under the Clause as drafted the Minister has the power in certain circumstances, acting on behalf of a local authority, to acquire land either by compulsion or by agreement. We are not concerned with the acquisition of land by agreement, but we are concerned as to the acquisition of land by compulsion. We should not be apprehensive but for the last few lines of the Sub-section. If the Minister were to adopt the method specified in the concluding lines we should not be at all afraid of common land being taken, but as the word used is "may," and not "must" or "shall," it appears to be a reasonable suspicion that instead of adopting this procedure he might adopt some other. So long as it is limited by the procedure set forth here, and he is obliged to act under the Housing Acts of 1890 to 1919, we are sufficiently protected, because under Section 73 of the Act of 1909 the local authority cannot take common land for housing unless an equivalent area or an area of equivalent value is returned to the common, or failing that, unless by the express consent of Parliament. With that we should be perfectly satisfied, but as this appears to be an optional procedure and the Minister might conceivably adopt another procedure, we ask that my right hon. Friend will allow words to be inserted which will make it perfectly clear that common land cannot be taken under this Clause. I know he is sympathetic, and he has no design upon commons, but for the protection of a great interest I hope he will not refuse us what we are asking for, and if he is not prepared to insert such words as I have suggested, I hope he will consider suggesting some words of his own which would equally meet our purpose.

I beg to second the Amendment. On the whole, I prefer the Amendment on the Paper to the alternative.

The Clause gives us no power to acquire common land, and it is in fact fully safeguarded, because a Minister may exercise any of the powers of a local authority in regard to the acquisition of land for house. He is not entitled to exercise any other power, and we have not got any other power. The powers of a local authority which the Minister may exercise are limited by Section 73 of the Act of 1909, which says that the local authority cannot acquire common land unless a proposal of that kind is specifically confirmed by Parliament, and neither I nor any successor of mine would have any power to do these things. I am advised that the words of my hon. Friend are quite unnecessary. I am just as anxious to safeguard the commons as he is. I recognise, however, that we may have a great scheme involving a tract of land on a portion of which there is a common. You would not have power to build on that common, but it would be considered as part of the scheme for the lay-out and the rest of it. Therefore, it would be undesirable to exclude such a consideration from the scheme. What my hon. Friend wants to do is to preserve the common. So do I. I am advised that commons are adequately preserved. If my hon. Friend will accept my assurance I will. ask my advisers to confer with those representing the very important organisation on behalf of whom he is speaking, and if their case is not fully and adequately safeguarded I will undertake that words shall be inserted giving the safeguard. I am satisfied they are safeguarded.

On that assurance I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Does the hon. Member object to the withdrawal?

Yes; until I have had an opportunity of putting a point before the Minister. I see the point of what he says in regards to acquiring commons compulsorily. The only way in which a common can be acquired compulsorily is, under the Housing Act, which contains a provision prohibiting such transaction without the assent of Parliament. It is possible, however, for a common to be acquired by agreement. The soil of the common is vested in the lord of the manor, but there are certain rights of common over it. In some cases those rights are vested in very few persons. Some of them have been bought out, and some may have lapsed. It is quite possible for a local authority to go to the lord of the manor and the owners of the common rights and by agreement purchase the common, and that would be done behind the back of Parliament, and in a way which would be very injurious to those who desire to protect the common. Therefore, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, when his advisers are considering this whole question, to see whether he could put in words which would not only safeguard cases where common is acquired, compulsorily, but would prevent a common from being acquired by agreement in the manner I have suggested, to the great detriment of the public at large.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, after Subsection (2), to insert

"(3) The Section of this Act relating to powers of trustees to invest in certain securities issued by local authorities shall not apply, and in lieu thereof local bonds issued under this Act shall be bonds within the meaning of paragraph (b) of Section three of the Trusts (Scotland) Act, 1898."

This new Sub-section is consequential upon the insertion of Clause 9 in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to insert the words

"Section 18 of the Improvement of Land Act, 1864, shall not have effect in the case of landowners in Scotland making applications for loans under that Act for the construction or reconstruction of houses for the working classes."

This is a technical Amendment designed to remove an obstruction to housing in Scotland. At present in England heirs in entail in possession, if they have young children, can obtain loans for the purpose of housing and other improvements without applying to the Courts of law. This was also the procedure in Scotland up till 1912. Up to that time we were under the English Board of Agriculture, and there was no difficulty about heirs in entail obtaining loans without going to the Courts. In 1912 Scotland was placed under the Scottish Board of Agriculture, and it was discovered under the Scottish law that for technical reasons heirs in entail in possession, if they had young children, had to apply to Court of Session if they wished to obtain loans for the purpose of improvements. I have had evidence from the Scottish Drainage Improvement Company which shows that this has been a deterrent. Previous to 1912 there were numerous applications from heirs in entail, but since 1912 only one application has been received, though numerous inquiries have been made. I understand that the Scottish Law Officers are prepared to accept this small Amendment. It will involve no charge on public money, but it removes a small though very real obstruction to housing in Scotland in certain cases. The effect of it would be that money which would otherwise be spent in legal expenses will be available for the additional improvement of housing.

I beg to second the Amendment.

It is desirable that loans should be used for reconstruction. On the last occasion that I was in Scotland I saw some houses which with the expenditure of very little money could be made useful houses. While they may not be quite up to the requirements, yet I think it would be a useful thing if money could be lent to these landlords so that these particular houses could be reconstructed. It would be of material help in some districts.

It this is a good thing for Scotland, why is it not a good thing for England? This Section as it stands obviously affects the proper working of the Act. It provides that any persons having an estate or interest in the land—that means persons in remainder—or any person acting for them, for instance, the father of a child, can object to the money being applied for the land improvements which are contemplated the Act, and one of the land improvements comes within the purpose of this Bill. It says, "the erection of labourers' cottages, farm houses, and other buildings." That is in Section 9, Sub-section (8), of the Act of 1864. Under the Amendment it will no longer be necessary to go through the long process of getting the consent of the Court and in the case of Scotland the Court of Session. It seems to be a desirable improvement for Scotland, but if it is good for Scotland what is the position in England?

I can reassure my right hon. Friend on this point. I have considered it with my right hon. and learned Friend, and I understand that this Section was repealed except in regard to Scotland in 1882. It is now proposed to put Scotland in the same position as England.

Amendment agreed to.

The next Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Rathmines is out of order. It seeks to impose a charge upon the Treasury. Before moving such an Amendment, the hon. Member must fortify himself with a Resolution of Committee.

I thought that it would facilitate, and that making it permissive instead of mandatory would remove the objection.

Amendment made: In paragraph (1, b), leave out the words "as regards any bonds to be thereafter issued."—[Dr. Addison.]

The following Amendment stood in the name of Sir H. HARRIS: After paragraph(1,d), insert

"(e) in the case of the county of London, be issued only by the London County Council."

The hon. Member has given notice of another Amendment. Who is to pay the Income Tax?

If it is out of order, I cannot move it.

I would like to know, on whom the hon. Member proposes to place the charge for Income Tax? If he is going to place it upon the municipalities, then that affects the law of rating. If he proposes to place it on the Treasury, he cannot do it without a Resolution of Committee.

I beg to move, to leave out paragraph (4).

The objection to this Sub-section is that local bonds may be subject to a very substantial depreciation. No doubt the Subsection is founded on the Interim Report of the 'Treasury Committee, but those recommendations have not been adopted as a whole and, owing to the very considerable modifications and omissions, this proposal would not be advisable. According to the Report of the 'treasury Committee, bonds were to be issued at face value. 'That is not in accordance with the proposals as they appear in the Bill. Therefore, it would be open for local authorities to follow the example of the Government when issuing the Victory Loan, and bring out the new bonds, perhaps, at an issue price of about 80 or 85. I think that they should have that right, but that right would be rendered nugatory by compelling them to take the bonds in payment for houses at face value. Then it was said in the recommendations that the bonds should be issued for a period of five, ten, or twenty years. That has been changed, and it is now only a minimum of five years and not a maximum, so that you may have a very long term loan issued which would be subject to far greater depreciation than a short term loan, which would be at face value in a short period. In its present form this proposal would mean that people living in houses might be able to buy them cheaper at the expense of the rates, the owners buying up bonds from their neighbours at a price of 80 or 86 and tendering them to the local authority for houses that had been built at par value of 100. It would also put the local authority in a very difficult position, because with this alternative method of payment for houses the local authority will ask whether they are going to be paid in cash or bonds, and if they are expecting to be paid in bonds they will necessarily have to ask a higher price than if they are going to be paid in currency. In any case, it is very undesirable in this way by a side wind to set up a new form of legal tender. I hope that the Government will drop this Sub-section altogther, or at feast limit the privilege to those who subscribe the stock originally to buy their houses and have paid the face value for their stock.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I agree entirely with what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said as to the probable effect of this Clause. I have a letter from the Treasurer to the Dublin Corporation, in which he points out the danger in the case of loans of less duration than forty or sixty years, that the burden which the sinking fund would entail on the city would be very serious. That points to the fact that these bonds would fall seriously, and if that is so it would be a great hardship on the local authority if it is possible for a person who is negotiating a transaction with them to compel them to accept these bonds at their face value.

I hope the Government will not accept this Amendment, because it would be a very serious matter, seeing that we have made these bonds trustee securities. A trustee security ought to be not only safe in the long run, ought for interest and for capital, but it ought, as far as possible, to be saleable, as near as possible, at par all the time. The danger with regard to these local bonds is that the market in them may be very imperfect and there may be very great difficulty in selling them, and they may even have to be sold at a discount. In fact, the very argument that the hon. and gallant Gentleman used in moving the Amendment is the one that convinced me that this Clause ought not to be left out. He says there is a serious danger of the depreciation of these bonds. If so, it is rather a serious thing that we have made them a trustee security. The one thing which will tend materially to keep them at par is that they can be tendered to the local authority in payment for houses, and if we take that away the danger of depreciation, simply for want of a market, may be very much increased. Moreover, if the local authority sells a house and gets cash for it, I presume it will have to use that cash in paying off the bonds. It clearly ought to do so; otherwise you may have a very large proportion of the houses sold and money in the hands of a local authority and the bonds not redeemed. It would be an absurdity to say that the local authority is to get cash for the houses and to pay off at a discount the bonds with which the houses were built.

I think the hon. Member has given the House very good arguments for resistance to this Amendment. This point was very carefully considered by the Treasury Committee, and this recommendation was made after the fullest examination of it by all those concerned, with a view of making the bonds a secure and attractive form of investment in different localities. These bonds are secured on the rates and properties of the local authorities. That is necessary if they are to become trustee securities. It will be a great inducement to many people who want to buy their houses to subscribe to these bonds, if they have the knowledge that they can tender the bonds as part payment for the houses at face value when the time arrives.

I hope the House will seriously consider the position in which we are placing the local authorities. If this Clause is retained, it appears to me that one serious result would be to prevent the local authorities from issuing bonds at a discount. I think that would be a most serious restriction upon the powers of the local authorities. It may very well be desirable to issue bonds say, at £90, for by so doing the authorities would be able to get money at a lower rate of interest. If you prohibit that you seriously hamper their opportunities of raising money. The Minister of Health says that this is in pursuance of the recommendations of the Treasury Committee, but two very important recommendations of that Committee have been entirely set aside. Take for instance, this:

"We recommend that local authorities be empowered to issue 5½ per cent bonds for five, ten and twenty years."

That recommendation has not been followed. If you turn to the Appendix you find that they say: "Bonds to be issued at their face value." I should like to know why that recommendation has not been followed. If it had been followed this Clause would be less objectionable than it is. But inasmuch as the Bill gives power to the local authority to issue bonds at a discount, the Clause as it stands becomes highly objectionable. The right hon. Gentleman cannot shelter himself under the excuse that he is following the-recommendations of the Treasury Com mittee, inasmuch as he has set aside recommendations in two most important respects. The only result of putting this Clause in is that it would probably in many cases be advantageous to the purchaser and highly detrimental to the great body of ratepayers. We all know that the ratepayers will have to make large contributions under this Bill for the purpose of housing. I do not believe the ratepayers, as a body, grudge that, if it be a national necessity that these houses should be built. But you must not, by a side wind, like this Clause, impose new and greater burdens upon the ratepayers than those to which they are already subjected by the Bill. It may be said that the, ratepayers have control over their local authorities. I do not believe the ratepayers have any such real control. Large numbers of people have their rates paid for them by the landlord, and they do not care very much how much the rates go up Therefore they do not exercise the control that they might. Further than that, look at the position of a great body of ratepayers who may be prejudiced by this Bill. I refer to the middle class, who already have a diminishing income, or at most a fixed income subject to heavy deductions for taxation. This Bill is going to put very heavy burdens on them, in many cases heavier burdens than they owners legitimately beasked to bear. I ask tae Minister not to give local authorities power to place this additional burden on the ratepayer.

I do not share the fears of the last speaker. I look upon this as one of the greatest advantages of this Bill. It will enable many of the occupiers to become owners. They can put in their money to the extent of £5, £10, or £20, as they earn it and it becomes available, and then they can purchase their houses with these bonds. If it is decided that the bonds are not to be accepted at face value, a would-be investor would at once say, "I should be losing money on this." We have heard it said repeatedly that people in the North of England are house proud. It is a very fine thing to have pride in your home. I hope sincerely that the Minister of Health will stick to this Clause. Eveything with regard to the supply of these houses is limited to a ld. rate, and therefore there can be no question of the ratepayers losing more than the Id. rate.

Amendment negatived.

I beg to move, in paragraph 4, after the word "value," to insert the words" whenever such bonds shall not have fallen below 90 per cent. of their nominal value"

The reason why I move this Amendment is that the rate of interest mentioned in the Schedule is 5½ per cent., and although that may be varied it is apparently to be the rate. I realised that 1 was out of order in making the suggestion that these bonds should be backed by a Treasury guarantee, but the fact that they will lack a Treasury guarantee will make a fall in price a certainty. With money at its present rate and prospective rate, a 5½ per cent. bond, even with a Government guarantee, would stand a very good risk of falling, and falling heavily. Without a Government. guarantee a local bond at 5½ per cent. is bound to fall, and I certainly would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he ought to protect the authorities from having these bonds landed in on them, and some limitation ought to be imposed. Local loans in Ireland, although issued at the rates which were prevalent before the War, and which will compare with the present-day rate, have fallen 10 per cent., 20 per cent., 30 per cent. and 40 per cent. If I wished to buy a house from a local authority and could buy bonds of the face value of £1,000 for £600, I could indulge in a game of beggar-my-neighbour, for that is really what it comes to. Therefore I submit that something ought to be done to avoid that possibility.

I beg to second the Amendment.

The same arguments apply to this as to the last Amendment. I believe that this provision is one of the most attractive features of the whole scheme.

I think nothing should be said by hon. Members to depreciate the value of these bonds. The hon. Member who spoke last said that local stock in Ireland had fallen from 10 per cent, to 40 per cent. I put it to him if those bonds had been receivable at their face value in payment of rates they would not have fallen like that. If these bonds are receivable in payment of houses that is one of the best securities you can possibly have.

If statements are made that the bonds may fall to 90 per cent., people are likely to mistrust them and not take them up. I think it is most desirable that these local bonds should be issued. They will prove very valuable to people who wish to buy the houses they occupy or wish to occupy, as they can save up their money in this way by purchasing the bonds. Again, I think the bonds are likely to keep up their value, for those who wanted to buy houses would buy the bonds from those who had them and who did not want to buy their houses. It is of the utmost importance that people 'should be encouraged to buy their houses because they then took an interest in them. Districts quite near to each other wore quite different aspects when in one place you had tenants and in the other occupying owners. We want, if we can, to have pleasant garden suburbs. The repairs where the occupants were tenants and not owners would be a constant burden on the rates, whilst the owners would have their own repairs done and would keep their gardens in good order.

It appears to me that the principle of this Amendment is really a, very vicious one in the effect it might have on the market by mentioning such a figure as 90 per cent. The bonds would fall lower and lower if they could not be used for this purpose, and on purely financial grounds, apart from the extremely important argument that it is a good thing to interest people locally in their own bonds, I think this Amendment ought to be rejected.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."

There is one question I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman. Before we rose on the occasion of the all-night sitting, I think the Government had held out a promise to the House that on the Report stage they would put down an Amendment dealing with the question of the completion of the house within a year. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that he accepted an Amendment increasing the period of three months to four months, and when he accepted that Amendment he stated that in the interval he would consider the question of a further Amendment making it quite clear as to how the amount should be payable. So I understood him. I went to the Vote Office, and tried to find out exactly what was said, but the OFFICIAL REPORT of that night's sitting is not yet printed, and, therefore, I am afraid it is quite impossible to quote the exact words. I do not want in the least to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman, but I understood he gave the promise that before Report he would put down an Amendment dealing with the subject. In the Bill as it stands the right hon. Gentleman has the power to increase the period of the year to sixteen months, during which the house has to be completed. That power is under Clause 1 (e), but the proviso says:

"Provided that a proportionate reduction of the Grant shall be made in respect of any house, which is not completed within the said period of twelve months unless the Minister is satisfied that the failure to complete the house within that period is due to circumstances over which the person constructing the house had no, control."

It does not seem at all clear if the period is increased to sixteen months that the grant will then be paid proportionately. I do not press the right hon. Gentleman now, but if he thinks the point a sound one he could have an Amendment introduced in another place to cover the matter.

I handed in an Amendment just now on the very point mentioned by the hon. Member. I was under the impression that something had been arranged to increase this twelve months, and it is extremely important that it should be increased. I also went to the Vote Office to try and get a copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT to see what happened, but it had not arrived.

I have got one.

I have been to the Vote Office three times this morning for it, but some of you gentlemen seem to be privileged.

I got this in the, Vote Office just now.

Well, I have been there three times since the Sitting of the House to attempt to obtain the OFFICIAL REPORT, because I wanted to see it, but I was not successful, and when I handed in my amendment I was too late. I hope there will be some extension of this, because although four months have been put in, there has been no latitude given to the Minister enabling him to deal with that item. I should like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman that at last he has brought in private enterprise, and I think now he stands a chance of getting some houses. Previously those houses have been very slow in coming forward, not entirely because the scheme has broken down, but because the local authorities must necessarily be slow in getting ahead. They have got to start from the initial stage, and therefore I congratulate the Minister upon that. I also want to press upon him that there is no point in limiting the subsidy to such a small house, because if you extend the superficial area to 1,500 feet you do not enlarge the house materially but you do enlarge the rooms, and it is necessary in some of those 8 feet by 7 feet houses, particularly if you get people of my size. A room like that is a very small room indeed with a bed in it, and there is not much room to turn round. I am one of those who believe in large rooms. I do not press the Government to increase the subsidy, but when they come to make these conditions, I think they should increase the area to 1,500 feet. and I believe that would bring in a very large number of houses. I had a letter handed to me when I went out to get the OFFICIAL REPORT, and this letter states that it is useless unless the subsidy is given for 1,400 ft. I impress that upon the Minister. In conclusion, I would like to congratulate him on getting this scheme through, and I hope he will soon now see the fruits of his labours in the erection of a large number of houses.

I would like to join in congratulating the right hon. Gentleman. I think probably the passage of this Bill will relieve him from a great deal of very unmerited criticism that has been passed upon him during the last, few months. It has, of course, always been open to say that if private enterprise had a look in it could do wonderful things. Well, private enterprise has now got its look in, and we shall await with very great interest to see the result. If we have not quite liked the second form of the right hon. Gentleman as well as his first, yet I think we can assure him that now he has got his Bill he can rely on the same hearty support as he has had all along in the working out of his scheme. We are all of us after the houses, and we all want the best houses, and I suppose we have now a double-barrelled chance of getting them. I should like to say that, as far as my experience goes, I want to pay a tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for his administrative-machinery. I think it is wonderfully well organised, and that it is doing great work and that the very impatient people who have been criticising it will in the course of a very few months see very great results from it. The right hon. Gentleman has perhaps got the biggest task in the Government, and he is entitled to the whole-hearted support of alt sections of the community. I should like also to say that I think he is to be congratulated on having in the Government a colleague like the Paymaster-General, who has had experience in this matter and who is bound to be able to give him a tremendous amount of assistance. In that association between the right hon. Gentleman and the Paymaster-General, I feel that both public and private enterprise will get the fullest chance of showing what they can do on the Housing question.

I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member (Mr. Lorden) as to the increased area. He may require a very large room, but I can imagine two men living side by side whose domestic responsibilities are somewhat different. One may have grown-up sons and daughters who require rooms and are themselves prepared to pay for them. This would be no increased; charge on the Exchequer, but if you build a large house you will not get the same subsidy. A man may have grown-up sons and daughters prepared to pay for single rooms for themselves, and there, I think, no harm would be done at all in increasing the space. As regards the remark made about bringing in private enterprise, I have felt all through that the main point of the private enterprise has been missed. It; is not a question of bringing in competition with the local authorities, but it is the fact, as we know in every large town and particularly in the London area, that there are dozens of estates which are laid out but not fully finished. In many instances which I have in my own mind roads have been built, sewers are in, water and gas mains laid, and everything is ready, and as soon as you make it worth while for private enterprise to start they can start at once, whereas if you take the local authorities they first have to secure sites. These sites have to be accepted and adopted, and there is then all the rest of the business to go through. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, I have never recognised this as private enterprise in competition with the local authorities' schemes. They will have plenty of time in which to develop theirs, but if you make it worth while for these men to start now who have the money laid out in their streets and everything ready to get on with, you must get houses more quickly after they have come to the conclusion that it is worth their while to do it. They will get houses up while the local authorities are talking about it. In conclusion, I would like to add my congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman and his excellent lieutenant who has assisted him so much.

I do not want to raise any discordant note, and, while I personally congratulate the Minister, I regret that he has been compelled to take the course which he has done. I do not want to repeat what 1 said on Second Reading, but I must say I think that if the Government had had a little more courage, and had maintained against the stunt Press, and the adverse criticisms that were made from uninformed quarters, a stiff upper lip, and had gone on resolutely with the big schemes which they had got well in hand, there would have been no need of any departure from the principle which they made. The question of subsidies for private enterprise was discussed in Committee upstairs when the first Bill was introduced. Since then an enormous amount of excellent work has been done throughout the country—spadework of laying the foundation of half a million houses in much less time than the critics suggested. My only criticism is that, by a change of policy at this stage, the production of houses may be seriously hindered and handicapped. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken referred to undeveloped or partially developed streets in urban areas. There is nothing in the Bill originally which prevented these being developed.

I pointed out that it did not pay local authorities to take up half a dozen different sites in a scheme.

That is perfectly true. I say there was no reason why the individual builder or contractor, who had his sewers and channels made, should not have built these houses in the same way, and, under Clause 12, Sub-section (3), sold them by arrangement to the municipality.

It would not have paid him.

It would pay him as well as the development of larger areas outside. I know in some cases those schemes are being considered, and being carried out. He would not have made a big profit on a sale at an extraordinary price, but he would have made his ordinary business profit and provided houses. It is not a competition between private and municipal enterprise. Private enterprise was already being harnessed by the municipalities to build houses if the houses were required, and I am seriously afraid that by this disturbance those builders who, in many localities, had their schemes in hand for building, will now be deterred and start on another system. With regard to finance, I do hope it will be possible for the Minister and the Government to reconsider the very great hindrance to the issue of these bonds which the absence of Treasury support means. In certain localities there is no difficulty in raising money. In the North many large towns have been accustomed for a very long time to get funds without difficulty, and at a much less rate than that to which one hon. Member from Ireland referred. But there are other towns where the difficulty is a real one, and it does seem to me extraordinary that a Government which can finance without hesitation our Friends abroad, Admiral Kolichak and General Denikin, cannot find sufficient money for our friends at home who ho have fought in the War and are now suffering from a lack of houses. It seems an ill-balanced policy to spend your money lavishly by the million abroad and to deny to those at home who have made considerable sacrifices the means to obtain houses. I do hope it will be possible for financial aid to be forthcoming, and then, no doubt, the last hindrance to municipal enterprise will be removed.

Like other speakers, I wish to join in sincere congratulations to the Minister in having got this Bill through, and we all earnestly hope he may have the success he desires in getting a large number of houses built which are so urgently needed. My only anxiety—and I think it is shared by the hon. Gentleman who spoke last and many others—is whether it will be possible for a great many authorities to raise money on the terms sanctioned without any Treasury or State guarantee. I regret very much that the Government did not see their way to give a State guarantee, if not in all cases, at any rate in those cases where it was urgently required, and subject to such conditions as might be laid down, I fear it is too late to introduce any provision of that sort now, because I am afraid it would not be in order in another place to introduce such a provision. I am not sure, but if it should be in order I hope my right hon. Friend would consider the desirability even now of introducing such a provision. It would not cost, in all probability, the State anything, but they would give their authority to the security, and by that means the municipality would be able to get money probably cheaper and easier than it otherwise would. Further than that, a State guarantee would prevent, to some extent at any rate, a serious depreciation of the loan, which might possiby take place if no such guarantee were given. Those are two most important results, and I venture to think it is well worth consideration whether that State guarantee could not even now be given. May I say the final word to my right hon. Friend? If it is too late now to introduce such a provision into the Bill, will he undertake, as I have no doubt he will, to give this question of raising money by municipalities his most careful consideration, and to watch the course of events? If it is found that there are a considerable number of municipalities, or even a moderate number, who are unable to raise these absolutely necessary funds without a State guarantee, will he tell us that he will do his utmost with the Government, in case of such failure as I have suggested, to introduce a Bill at an early date providing the State guarantee, in order to enable this great scheme, which we all so earnestly desire, to be carried out.

The Third Reading of this Bill affords the only opportunity in which we can say something to the Minister of Health about the many Regulations which he has to make under this Bill, because those Regulations will be put into force without the House having an opportunity of considering them. It, therefore, becomes very important on the Third Reading that we should get from the Minister of Health in his reply a very clear statement as to what the Regulations are going to contain. Above all, those Regulations should be complete and simple, because if you are going to get the small private builder, and, as it may be, the country landlord, to build cottages and houses under this Bill, he wants to know exactly where he stands before he begins, and whether he is really going to get a subsidy or not. It is no use having excessive complications. That is the thing to be very much avoided, because I am perfectly certain that the great merit of this Bill lies in the fact that you will bring in to help solve the housing problem a large number of small builders up and down the country who are not able or willing to contract or tender for the local authorities' schemes. The main building firms will share out between them the work of the big local authorities, who are really far more advanced than most people would seem to realise. Behind them there is the man who works for the country landowner, the big farmer, and people of that sort, and who employs a few bricklayers. They will come in under this Bill. That is among the merits of this Bill. In order to get these people at work and at work quickly, your Regulations regarding the terms on which the subsidy has to be granted must be of the simplest and most practical character.

These Regulations I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make clear in his reply this afternoon, as I hope he will make it clear, too, that the charge that has been made by some hon. Members that this Bill is going to allow the lowering of the standard and the type of houses subsidised, to that which is going to be allowed to the public authority, is baseless; and that quite otherwise is the wish of this House and his Department. We have got to have that objection clearly removed; then, when we have people fully satisfied that this subsidy is not going to be used to lower the standard and type that this country is determined to have, many of the objections to the Bill will be removed. I am quite certain that the main bulk of the houses will have to be provided in the next year or two; the sooner and the more we can get the first year the better. We do not want the idea at the back of the minds of some people that you can spread this matter out for five or more years. We want the houses immediately. I believe we shall get them next summer. The Act has not yet had a chance. It was only passed at the end of this summer. If we are going to get a large number in the first year, we want it made perfectly clear that the main responsibility for the provision of these houses remains, under the main Act, with the local authority. This Bill is only really a frame, an assistance, a sup port. The main provision must be made by the local authorities. Nothing must be done, or will be done, either by this House or the right hon. Gentleman's Department, to damp the energy and enthusiasm which all local authorities have got to put into carrying out the intentions of Parliament in Clause. I of the principal Act—namely, that it is their duty themselves to see that the people in their locality are properly housed—their duty and that of nobody else.

In common with other hon. Members I should like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill on the sympathetic manner in which he has acted in this and on the former measure. But I should just like to refer to the position of housing in the rural districts of Scotland, and to express my disappointment that something has not been done to solve that problem. Possibly in no part of the country is there more need for housing. We have a peculiar relationship in agricultural circles in Scotland in this matter of housing—that is to say, the owners of large estates, are responsible for the cottages in which the workmen live. The land, including so many cottages, is let to the farmer, and the landlord is responsible for the housing. Where the landlord during past years has been anxious to maintain the cottages in the best possible condition, they may be fairly good, although that condition has never been measured by the requirements of the Bill. But where landlords have not given attention to the housing, as they ought to do, the position is different What might occur would be this: Take a large estate where, say, 100 cottages are required. Because of the neglect of these houses the subsidy granted under this Bill would go to help the man who had not been doing his duty, whilst the man who had been doing his duty would not be reaping the same reward.

Some of us are absolutely opposed to any subsidy coming from the Government to any private individual. The need, however, of housing is so great that we lay on one side our objection to these Bills, and, in order to get the houses at the earliest possible moment, gladly fall in with the proposal. If you consider the Bill in relation to the cost of building, hon. Members will understand that Scotland is placed in a very bad position compared with England. The cost of building at the very least is 100 per cent. more, while the dole is not greater because of that increased cost. If the house in Scotland cost £430 before the War, a similar house now would cost £900 or possibly £1,000. If so, we have laboured under this disability. In any case—and this is my reason for rising—I specially want to impress upon those in charge of the Bill—and I remember the right hon. Gentleman, in introducing the Bill, said that possibly another Bill would be required at no distant date —that in that next Bill something should be done to make it possible that these men in Scotland, who are possibly the finest workmen in the world and insufficiently housed, should he properly housed, and as the men are in the towns and urban districts.

We cannot join in congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on this Bill, and I will give one or two reasons. There is no section in the House that has demanded so long, and so strongly, more houses than has the Labour party. It was suggested in Committee that the action of the Labour party meant that we were not in favour of the provision of more houses. The Labour party are in favour of them, but it is opposed to this Bill because, in our opinion, the principle of the Bill is bad. I shall endeavour to show why. In the first place, as I stated in Committee, the Bill means this, to give an illustration, that a builaer puts up ten houses. In most urban places he will undoubtedly sell those houses at a profit of £100 each, say, independent of the subsidy. That will be a profit of £1,000, which is a fairly good profit on ten cottages.

Who is going to do this? Has the private individual to do this, and, if so, why is not he doing it now?

I was coming to that. But this subsidy of £150 would mean for those ten cottages £1,500 added to the £1,000. This gives a profit of £2,500 on the ten cottages. To come to the point put a moment ago by the hon. Gentleman opposite: the main reason the private individual is not doing it now is because there is a ring in building materials. There is a ring also in connection with the estimates for the erection of the cottages. There is not the least doubt whatever about that. The Government and the Minister of Health would have been far better and more usefully employed if they had taken steps to break down these rings than in passing this Bill. We are doubtful, and personally I am extremely doubtful, that under the provisions of the Bill the houses will be built.

Hear, hear!

Because the subsidy is not only subsidising the builder; it is helping the builder to subsidise the rings, and enabling him to pay an increased cost that ought not to be charged for the materials required for the production of these houses. What is more, it is probable that these rings if not broken will still further increase the price of building materials. But there is something more than this. You are subsidising trusts and combines and rings, and what is going to happen as regards the workmen in the building trade? They have already taken steps at once to demand a substantial increase in wages. What does that mean? It means if it is given that the subsidy will be reduced in value to the person who receives it, and if wages are increased things will be in practically the same position as they were before. The result of this will be that the subsidy cannot be of any value to the builder, and that is what is coming. If to enforce this demand for an increased wage the men have to strike, it means a loss of valuable time, and while strikes are on houses are not being erected. Personally, I think strikes seldom serve any useful purpose, and I do not think they will be so frequent as they have been. I believe the day of strikes has gone by, and the way to settle these things is across the table. But human nature being what it is I can see trouble coming in the building trade. Not only will you force wages up in connection with buildings that are subsidised, but this will be the case in connection with every building operation in the country, and therefore you are going to increase the cost of living still further. I think the Government have been extremely badly advised in introducing a Bill framed on these lines.

I should like to ask the representative of the Ministry of Health what are they going to do if this Bill is a failure. Are they going to tinker and tamper with the question of the erection of houses? I believe in the long run they will be forced to tackle the trusts and combines that are holding up materials required for the erection of houses. In my opinion they would have been better advised if instead of subsidising the builders, they had taken strong measures to deal with the people responsible for the non-erection of houses. Whilst we wish to see good houses erected for the working classes, and for every other class in the country, we do not think that this Bill will accomplish the purpose which the Minister of Health has in view. We do not intend to force a Division upon the Third Reading of this Bill, but if a Division is forced the Labour party will be compelled to vote against this measure.

I think we are all agreed that the erection of houses is highly essential at the present time, and they are much required. I believe it is forecasted that about 1,000,000 houses will be required in Great Britain and Ireland. One thing occurs to me in connection with this housing scheme, and it is that up to the present moment there does not seem to be the slightest degree of certainty as to what the houses are going to cost. This point, in my opinion, is the primary essential to consider more than any other phase of the subject. We are told that a house will cost anything between £400 and £800, and there is a great disparity between those two estimates. We have been told that the cost will vary according to the districts. I am speaking in regard to Belfast, where I find the cost has been forecasted at about £920 for a single house. I was speaking to a well known contractor who has done a great amount of work for the Government in Ireland, and he told me plainly that, in his opinion, the cost of a house suitable for the working classes in Belfast instead of being £920 should be about £420. There is a big discrepancy.

I have had experience of my own in this matter. Only a year ago when we went to look at a house put up by one of the leading contractors of Belfast, the contract price was £320, and that was only a year ago. Now we are told that a house with similar accommodation is going to cost £929. There is not the slightest certainty as to what these houses are going to cost or how the expenses are going to be allocated. It seems to me that the house is going to cost too much for the tenants to be able to live in it. With regard to subsidising the private builders, I am opposed to it altogether. You propose to give a subsidy to a man for building a house, and the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) said that a private contractor could build more cheaply than a public body, and still you propose to sub- sidise the private builder who will inevitably make a profit in the ordinary way, and still you propose to give him an extra £150 per house. I demur to that. If a subsidy is to be given it should not be given to the builder but to the workmen. What is the purpose of this subsidy? Is it to indemnify the builder against the probable loss? The builder will see that that does not occur, but if the subsidy is not for that purpose what can it be for? If it is intended to encourage him to expedite building, that can be done not by the builder but only by the men who work. The Government would have been far better advised if they had suggested that the subsidy should be divided amongst those who worked in connection with the building trade. With regard to housing accommodation, I believe Belfast is the best housed community in the three Kingdoms. But there is a great amount of property in Belfast that would have to be demolished, although it is in a fair condition, but the reason for this is that it is unsuitable to accommodate the people who live in it.

The vast majority of the houses have only two rooms. And what are two rooms for eight or ten people to live in? Why should these working people not have an extra room, because if a friend comes, to visit them they find the greatest inconvenience in entertaining, and why should there not be an extra room or two in every working man's house.

I contend that in this respect the Minister would have been well advised if he had seen that the standards with regard to these houses were in no way interfered with. We should not, under any conditions, have fewer than three bedrooms. I quite recognise that there are certain conditions which require to be catered for, as, for instance, where there is a very small family or where people are not prepared to pay a high rent, but I am glad to have his assurance that it will be restricted to 5 per cent., because it would be most unfortunate, if that limit were exceeded. At the present moment working-class families in Belfast are large, and provision has to be made accordingly. Moreover, I would say to the Minister responsible in this matter that houses should not be unprovided with baths. Notwithstanding the assurance that the Minister has given, I gather from a good many communications from citizens of Belfast that they are of the opinion that there is to be no provision for baths at all. I hope that baths will be insisted upon, because if there is any portion of the community that requires this provision it is the working-class. Many a man who will not go to a. public bath to have his body cleansed would not hesitate if he had a bath in his own house. I hope, therefore, that there will be an instruction to the local authorities to secure the provision of baths and, also adequate accommodation in the matter of rooms. We all wish the scheme great success, and we congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon the admirable case which he has made out for the Bill and on the way in which he has carried it through the House.

We all congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon the great work that he has done, but I would urge upon him the absolute necessity of having inquiries made into the charges that have been so freely made during the Debate of rings and malpractices on all sides. If we do not get to the bottom of these Charges, I do not believe that we can get on with housing as expeditiously as we ought to do, nor can we maintain industrial peace in this Country as we hope to do. We have heard many times that there are rings in building materials and rings in contracts, and it is absolutely necessary that there should be inquiry into these matters, and, if it be found to be so, that strong measures should be taken to put an end to it. Many of us were intensely grieved to hear from the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. T. Wilson) that the men in the building trade are going to make this subsidy a reason for demanding a higher rate of wages. I do not say that there ought not to be a demand for a higher rate of wages on general grounds, but I do say that this subsidy should be made the reason is most regrettable. This subsidy is voted for the express purpose of hastening the supply of houses and to enable us to get a larger number and more cheaply than we could hope to do so otherwise, and for any body of men to say that they are going to get part of that money for their own private uses is most regrettable. It is no answer to say, "If we do not get it, the rings in building materials and of contractors will get it." If those people are working iniquitously, I should be very sorry to see the working classes imitate their example. It has been mentioned many times that charges are brought against the men in the building trade of not doing a fair day's work, and we are told that the men are anxious that that charge should be investigated. I do not say that it is true, but I have heard it year in and year out for a long time, and now that the men have said that they are anxious it should be investigated, I hope it will be investigated, and that at the same time the charges of alleged rings in the supply of materials and in contracting will also be investigated, so that we can get to the bottom of the matter. If these things are done, I believe that we may hope to have very much better speed, very much better economy, and a continuance of peace in the industrial world, which we cannot hope to have if these charges are left flying about without any adequate investigation.

The hon. and learned Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) earlier this afternoon made a very sympathetic and moving appeal to the Minister to reconsider the question of the Treasury guarantee on municipal building. There is no Member of this House who is more anxious than I am to see this housing scheme reach fruition, but, after studying this matter very closely, I am satisfied that the only possible way of securing success is to put the onus or responsibility upon the municipal authorities. If the Treasury guarantee the municipal borrowing or issue, it will be a case of "leave it to father." The municipal authorities will say "If it is a success, so much the better; but, anyhow, if it is not, the Treasury will pay. "If the municipal authorities once get that idea, their stocks will fall. The only way that their stocks will be held up will be by the Treasury not guaranteeing the success, but by it being left to their own individual effort. The surest way of securing that is to put the onus or responsibility of making the scheme a success upon the municipal authority itself. We all want to see the scheme a success, but it must be economically sound, and, if the Treasury say, "We are trusting you to do it, but whether it is a success or a failure we will take the burden, "it will not be very long before the Treasury are called upon to bear it.

The hon. Member opposite (Mr. M'Guffin) made a very touching appeal on behalf of Belfast. I would appeal to hon. Members not to come here on a big issue like this and represent peculiar conditions in any one particular town. This is a broad national issue; it is not a question of the wants of Muddleton-on-the Mud or any other similar place. We are dealing with a big national problem, and, if the fact that this Bill has been introduced at all shows anything, it shows the determination of the Ministry of Health to make a success of their scheme. They relied for the success of their first scheme upon local support, both financial and otherwise, but it was not forthcoming either speedily enough or sufficiently to meet the problem. They therefore came down here now with a new Bill within a very few months, and I feel sure that this Bill has just about as many faults in it as any other Bill that any Government has brought in. On the other hand, there is no doubt that it will make a considerable appeal to a vast number of people in the country to commence building operations immediately. I would make an appeal to the Minister of Health which I have made many times before. There is something absolutely unsound in the present cost and prices both of building and of building materials. When an hon. Member suggested that a house could be built for £400, I felt that 1 should like to be introduced to the contractor who would undertake to do that, provided that it was anything like a sound proposition. All things have increased in value and increased in cost, but the increase in the cost of building materials is out of all proportion. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to set on foot an inquiry as to the profits which are being made by firms dealing in such materials, and I would ask him not to give the subsidy to the builder of any house unless he provides at least three bedrooms. This is, absolutely essential. Possibly the working-class family can cut out the invited guest, but the children are of two sexes, and it is absolutely essential that the father and Mother should have their own room, and that the male children and the female children should have their rooms respectively. I know that the right hon. Gentleman does appreciate that. I think that any scheme that is going to promote a repetition of the conditions which exist in many working-class areas to-day is socially unsound, and I appeal to him not to countenance it. Even if the rooms are smaller, there should be at least three separate bedrooms in every house.

In the first place, I should like to thank the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down and other hon.

3.0 P.M.

Members who have spoken in such a friendly fashion of myself and of the Department which I have the honour to represent. I agree with the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Billing) that the principle of casting upon the local authority the responsibility with regard to the floatation of these bonds, and of encouraging them not to rely upon the Treasury, is thoroughly sound. I believe that if we had accepted the suggestions which have been made that there should be Treasury guarantees behind these bonds, we should have had the very result which has been anticipated, namely, that in many places the campaign for inducing people to subscribe to these bonds would have been lacking in real energy, and the localities would simply have rested for support upon the assistance of the Treasury. I think it is of the first importance that we should secure an increase in the activity of local patriotism and interest. This is a point which is of lasting importance. I think one of the weak points of our system of local government is the sad lack of interest taken in it by many of our citizens. You see it manifested in the trivial number of them who take the trouble togoand vote at elections. It is of the utmost consequence that the steps we can take in connection with this Bill should have the effect of bringing active minds into municipal affairs. That will enormously improve our administration not only in this matter, but in many others throughout the whole country.

Some of the speakers have dealt with the question of cost. My hon. Friend opposite (Mr. T. Wilson) drew atention to the high prices of materials, and emphasised the importance, if this scheme and other schemes are going to be successful, of dealing with that in every direction that we can. I propose next week to issue as a White Paper a statement showing, as far as we are able to ascertain them, the changes in the prices of building materials before the Armistice, at the time of the Armistice, and since. There has been a good deal of exaggeration sometimes, and I think my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton himself is under some misapprehension in some respects. For all that, the rise in prices in many cases is really appalling. I am quite sure, however, that it is very unfair, in any of these criticisms, to fling about charges of profiteering before the facts are fully investigated. Take one simple matter—that of bricks. I know that some of the biggest brickyards at the present time are very short of transport facilities. They only get two-thirds of the number of trucks that they want. In consequence of transport delays, they have to keep a bigger working staff in the yards, and owing to the shorter days that are worked the trucks are not turned round anything like as quickly as they were before. All this piles up the cost from the very beginning, and it is fair that it should be investigated before any general sweeping charge is made. We are having that investigation carefully made in conjunction with the Board of Trade.

As to the alleged slackness of work on the part of men in the building trade, I may say that we have been inquiring of contractors and getting evidence as well as we could for some months past. The evidence, such as it is. is very conflicting, and often it is founded upon statements which are very uncertain in character. Until the evidence is properly obtained and sifted, we do not found any general case upon it, but we are taking all preliminary steps that are necessary in that respect, and I can assure the House that I am only too anxious that any form of inquiry which may be found desirable to extend what we have already done shall have the fullest possible assistance from us. We have done all that we could up-to the present with the powers that we have. Speaking generally, I should say that there is a remarkable diversity in the reports. In some cases we seem to get quite good production, but in some cases there is no doubt that the evidence does indicate a serious falling-off as compared with pre-war output, due to many causes. Some of the returns, on the other hand. show a considerable improvement as compared with the output of last year, and in many cases the improvement seems to be-growing. This is another case in which wholesale generalisations should be very carefully avoided.

As to the general influence of the Bill on the main proposals of the Government which have taken up the activities of the Department, I think that on the whole we can congratulate ourselves that this measure is justified. Everyone is agreed that it will bring in a large number of builders who would not otherwise have come in. I believe it will be immensely useful, particularly in rural areas. Although I have had to resist Amendments moved by hon. Members with regard to, standards, I assure them that I intend to do my best to maintain the attitude we have hitherto adopted with regard to standards. I intend to make it as clear as can be that we mean to have a better standard of housing, and to make it quite clear what is the kind of standard we want. In regard to the water supply, as well as furnishing facilities for the necessary supplies to bathrooms, we shall certainly require them wherever it is possible. I agree that it is abundantly necessary that any directions should be simple and clearly stated. I know that my hon. Friend who raised the question has had to struggle a good many times with official phraseology. Having been behind the scenes, I know how difficult it is to frame phrases which will be water tight in view of the different Acts of Parliament which one has to consider in framing them. You cannot in official regulations express yourself with the same clearness that you can in the ordinary way. I will do everything I can to see that clear ness is secured. The Debate has justified the contention I put forward on the Second Reading, that this measure would not and must not be allowed to interfere with or minimise the activities of the municipalities and others in securing the main purpose. I am satisfied that it will not, and on the whole the Debate has supported that contention.

I should like to deal, in as non-contentious a way as I can, with the contribution to the discussion made by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. T. Wilson). I am sorry he is not here. I have been puzzled at different times during the course of the discussion to know what it is that the Labour party wants in this matter, I can understand the objection to the principle of the Bill, that is the principle of giving a subsidy to a private individual for any purpose, however praiseworthy. What I cannot understand are the other contentions of the hon. Member. If I understood him aright, he said, in the first place, that the Bill would be abortive and would not produce the houses. In that case, of course, nobody would get the subsidy, and, there fore, he would be pleased with the result. Secondly, he argued that as a matter of fact the subsidy would produce the houses, but that the whole of the money would go into the pockets of a gang of profiteers. I suppose the money will go somewhere. I Shall be satisfied if it produces a house. It is the house I want, and I am not much concerned how the £150 is ultimately distributed. If the contention of the hon. Member was that if the prices of materials with which houses are built were put up so that they absorbed the whole subsidy then the position would be as you were. The position is that people are not building houses because it does not pay them to build them, and that would be exactly the position if these people absorb the £150. That is an argument which results in a similar impasse to the other. Nobody would get the subsidy, neither would the gangs of profiteers get it, because nobody would build the houses. Finally, the hon. Member said that if neither of these arguments held good the workmen will get the subsidy. If that is the case, all I can say is that my hon. Friend is not doing justice to those whom he professes to represent, because the whole basis of his contention is that he objects to the subsidy going to a private person. He now says that if you have a subsidy the workmen will get it. That is not very consistent with the principle he laid down. It also lands him in the same difficulty as his other argument, because if the cost of building houses is automatically put up so that it absorbs the subsidy, the scheme will be just as abortive as if the cost of cement or bricks were put up and absorbed the subsidy. In every case it would furnish no further inducement to any single individual to build a house.

I do not believe that any of these dreadful things will happen. I believe that we shall get a large number of houses of quite a good class. If the hon. Member had been here, I should have asked him whether, instead of making these objections—which, in my view, are entirely selfish—he would not rather lay himself out, as I know many members of his patty are doing—certainly those in the building trade—to help us a little with some useful suggestions. I should be extremely grateful, and I think the House would be, too, if he did so. It would be much better service to the community. However, this is only a small matter compared with the chief issue before us.

In conclusion, I should like to thank hon. Members for the help they have given us in the difficult conditions under which we presented the. Bill. I hope that they and that we will be able to make it a success. I recognise that we have three months of bad weather before us. I take the opportunity of saying so now. When somebody comes along in the month of March and puts a question to me as to how many houses have been built and I have to say that 2,125 are started and none finished, I think I shall only be saying what is highly probable in February and March I only want to say in advance that I am not expecting impossibilities. The hon. Member (Mr. Locker-Lampson) asked whether, in the event of the building not being completed within the twelve months and the period being extended for another four months, the builder would receive a subsidy if the circumstances leading to the delay were such that the builder had no control over them. In accordance with my promise I discussed that with my advisers, and in their view paragraph (c) of Subsection (2) makes it perfectly clear. If it is not I shall be prepared to consider any representation with a view to its further Amendment. I feel satisfied that by this Bill we shall have made, in the special circumstances, a highly valuable contribution towards the solution of the housing problem. I would appeal to the House to let us have the Third Reading quickly because the Bill has to go to the other end of the passage.

I think we want to take notice of the fact that after more than twelve months the Government has brought in this other Bill, and the Minister in replying to the discussion on the Third Reading has protected himself by the weather from any progress being made with housing until the spring of next year.

I said under this Bill.

I accept my right hon. Friend's correction—under this Bill.

How would you do it?

It could be done by dealing drastically with what we call the land question. That is not the question of the site on which the house is built or the proportion of the value of that site to the materials of which the house is built, but if you dealt with the land question in a proper way and released not only the land but all the products of the land which go to the making of a house and took off all kinds of control and supplied the builder with the materials on which the Government is now making enormous profits—

May I ask, on a point of Order, whether any hon. Member will be entitled to reply to the general argument if the hon. Member develops it?

I was about to intervene, but the hon. Member was rather challenged by the opposite side of the House. We must really strengthen our Rules and on the Third Reading of a Bill we must not have a general debate but must be confined to the matter contained within the Bill.

I did not propose to enter upon the argument but for the interruptions which were made. I wanted to show that if one cared one could put up a very strong case from the other side. This Government, which came into power on the great problems of reconstruction and which promised us houses, is, after a period of eighteen months, not able to produce a house.

The right hon. Gentleman (Dr. Addison) said this Bill would introduce improvements into the rural housing question. That may be so in England, but if in any respect the housing Bills are deficient it is in respect of the rural housing question in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman invited suggestions. May I make one or two to the Scottish Secretary of the Board of Health? One of the deficiencies of the Bill, as I view it, is that it is not going to lead to much greater provision for housing the workers in the rural districts of Scotland. Under the Bill it is proposed, and as I understand it, this is the policy of the Scottish Board of Health, to build new houses principally in the villages. That may he a very good thing in England, but it is not a very good thing in Scotland. It is of no help to us in Scotland. It only provides a few extra houses for the farms that happen to be near the particular villages in which these houses are built. The Board should not take too limited a view of the provisions in the Bill which might help housing in Scotland. I suggest that the Board should pay very much more attention to the reconstruction of existing houses.

That is not concerning this Bill but the preceding Bill, under which schemes were framed. This Bill deals with the individual builder.

But the Bill provides for a £150 subsidy which may be used for that purpose. The representative of the Scottish Board of Health understands what I have in mind. I hope he will give consideration to that point and bear it in mind in any scheme that the Scottish Board of Health submits.

I can assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend and myself are in constant communication with the Board of Agriculture in regard to questions of housing in rural Scotland. We are most sympathetic, and shall adopt the most speedy way of putting into force whatever new powers we have under this Bill. There is not only the question of subsidy, but there is also the larger assistance which is now given to public utility societies; and I would have my hon. Friend remember, and also I would remind another hon. Friend opposite, who seemed to doubt whether anything had been done in regard to rural housing in Scotland, of the statements made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Health a few weeks ago when discussing this question. He said that there is to be a total sum of £30,000 a year for the next ten years available to assist in dealing with the question of rural housing in Scotland. I know that that is confined to the crofting areas in Scotland, but with the assistance to those areas it gives us a larger amount to deal with the other parts of Scotland.

Is that in this Bill?

No, Sir.

Then it is out of order.

I was replying to what has been said.

1 have already ruled that out of order. We cannot have a discussion on the whole of the original Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

Hon. Members who happened to be present on Tuesday will remember that I asked leave to withdraw certain Estimates, including this one, in order that I might be in a position to put before the Committee with greater accuracy facts to justify the Vote. I am now in a position to reply to questions which hon. Members, quite properly and in a friendly way, addressed to me. The Vote is in respect of harbours which were under the jurisdiction of the Board of Trade and have now passed under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Transport by virtue of the Ministry of Transport Act and an Order made thereunder so recently as the 23rd September last. The Vote which I am submitting would in the ordinary course have been submitted on behalf of the Board of Trade. The first item in the account is in respect of Holyhead Harbour, and for which £1,500 is asked as a Supplementary Estimate. The original Estimate was £7,076. Of the sum now requested, about £100 is in respect of a small cutter. The balance is almost entirely due to the increase in war bonus to the staff employed in the harbour which has been granted under a recent award. Holyhead Harbour is a Government-owned harbour, and we are asking the Committee to finance the Crown's own property. The next item is in respect of Montrose Harbour. In 1918 two sums of £750 each were advanced by the Board of Trade, under Treasury sanction. On the 23rd May of this year the Treasury authorised the present advance of £750, and it is that sum which I invite the Committee to grant to-day. I somewhat erroneously stated on Tuesday that there was some question of an increase of wages in connection with the Montrose Grant. I believe that is not so, but it was a contribution towards revenue. A matter of greater importance relates to the River Wear, and the sum which is asked for is £193,142. In the year 1916 the Commissioners of the River Wear, who are the river and harbour authority, approached the Treasury for' financial assistance by way of loan to assist them to meet the charges which were becoming due in respect of special services, especially worked in connection with dredging which had been rendered necessary by naval operations, and which were vital to shipbuilding yards, which in turn were absolutely vital to our success in the War. The matter was referred by the Treasury to the Admiralty to report, and these facts appeared: A naval depot had been established there, and quay spaces and river berths had been given up for naval use, and the approaches were impeded by the defences which had been placed there. In addition to that the revenue of the Commissions had declined both in outward and inward traffic. The question for the Admiralty to decide was answered in a letter from the Board of the 6th January, 1917, strongly supporting the request. In these circumstances loans were made between the 5th February, 1917, and the 22nd February, 1919, amounting in the aggregate to £353,000. I can give further details if desired. These were carried on the Vote of Credit to the Board of Trade and dealt with in terms in the. Appropriation Account for the year. The present request is made under these circumstances: On the 1st April this year the Treasury decided—and I think the de-decision will meet with universal approval —that the procedure by way of Vote of Credit which had been essential during war-time was no longer available for ordinary purposes, and that services hitherto borne on such Votes must appear on the accounts of the appropriate Votes. It is because of that that I am here to-day asking for the consent of the Commitee to these Votes. The Board of Trade on the 25th June last advanced on revenue account to the River Wear Commissioners £43,000.

At what rate of interest?

I prefer to defer those details for the moment and to give the broad outline. I think it was 5½ per cent. or 6 per cent. Some of the loans were at 1 per cent. above bank rate, while others were at rates specified at the time of the advance. On the 25th June last, the Board of Trade, in pursuing a policy which had been settled earlier and approved by this House, made this advance on revenue account. The Ministry of Transport came into existence in August last, and certain functions were handed over to it in September last. On the 22nd October the Ministry of Transport, carrying out the policy to which it was pledged by its predecessors, and the decision of the Government, lent on capital account to the River Wear Commissioners, a sum of £50,000 to repay a loan which Was falling due, and became the successors to the security which the lenders had originally received. Those two sums amount in the aggregate to £93,000. They have been dispersed, and I ask the Committee to ratify the transaction. It is estimated that during the remainder of the financial year further sums may come in charge, one sum of £50,000 for capital, another sum of £35,142 for revenue, and a third sum of £15,000 which was promised, I believe, by the Board of Trade to be paid on the satisfactory completion of the south pier. Those three items amount to £100,142. They are not yet definitely agreed to, and in what I am saying I do not wish to betaken as giving the consent of the Government to the request made for those sums. The figures I have given amount to £193,442. It is a sum of £194,000 which appears on the Estimate. Now as to, future policy. Requests were made on Tuesday night by hon. Members in various parts of the House that they might be informed of the policy of the Government in future with reference to making advances to authorities, not profiteering authorities, but public authorities of the nature I have indicated. I cannot do better than quote a Treasury Minute of the 26th July last, in these terms:

"The policy of the financing by the executive of harbour authorities for the purpose of capital expenditure could only be adopted, if at all, after a comprehensive review of the needs of the country as a whole in the way of harbour facilities."

It is precisely that kind of survey which is one of the functions of the Ministry of Transport.

We are obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the full statement which he has been able to give us. The minute quoted by the hon. Gentleman says that the policy of giving assistance to harbours in the United Kingdom must depend on the result of a comprehensive survey. That seems reasonable and fair, but the hon. Gentleman does not explain why this particular harbour has claims over the claims of others. On Tuesday night my hon. Friend said that the reason why the Wear Commissioners had got into a bad state was that originally pit props, iron ore and wood pulp were the three main items which were imported and that there was a great diminution in the receipts from those services. That is true of a great many authorities. A good many hon. Members could put up a special case for a particular harbour, and if I wanted to I could put up a claim for a harbour in the vicinity of my own Constituency. I want to know, is this comprehensive review being made? Is the Ministry of Transport now at work on this question of harbours in the country, or is it simply a selection of the harbours that ought to be developed? Can the right hon. Gentleman say in a sentence or two what is the policy, and whether the policy adumbrated by the Treasury Minute is actually being carried out by his Department?

Apparently under this Estimate we are being asked to pass an Estimate which ought to have been brought before the Committee last year, and the Estimate itself includes advances which it was thought were originally included in the Estimates of the year previous to last year.

As I have explained, they were dealt with under Votes of Credit, and appear in terms on the Appropriation Account.

I was called out of the House for the time and did not hear that. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.

While it is all very well to talk about harbour authority, yet we in this House are the authorities to grant money, and a comprehensive survey is not sufficient ground for the Ministry to make grants which the House knows nothing about. It is a question for this House to make a survey and judge whether the thing is necessary or not. It is not sufficient to say on the part of the Treasury that a comprehensive survey is being made by the Ministry before it has been brought to this House. Nothing about a comprehensive survey has been put before this House ! Our business is to look after finance. This comprehensive survey may be a very good thing, but it is not the business of the Ministry to spend money without leave of the House, and it ought to be taken into consideration in future Estimates that this comprehensive survey cannot be decided without being properly discussed in this House and reasons given as to the various claims of each harbour.

I should like to add a word of acknowledgment to what has already been said as to the courtesy of the Minister of Transport in having held over this Vote. We realise that the Ministry is only getting into its stride. It is the first time that Votes of this kind have been brought forward by the Department. I hope that these two Debates will convince the right hon. Gentleman that it is as absolutely essential that we should have some definite principle laid down on which these Grants are based. One immediately asks oneself why a Grant should be given to these particular harbours and not to a great many other harbours. There are unpleasant and inevitable comparisons suggested by looking at the list. Holyhead, in Wales, gets a very small Grant; Montrose, in Scotland, gets a very small Grant; the. River Wear, in England, gets a huge Grant; and Ireland gets nothing at all. I think that all these Grants are open to great abuses unless they are considered as part of a comprehensive policy applicable to the whole of the United Kingdom. I hope that if the House, pressed as it is for time, consents to pass this Vote with out any further explanation of the principle on which it is based, it will not betaken as a precedent for next Session.

I would like to reply to what has been said by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that this is no precedent whatsoever, and I hope that if I fail in my duty in that respect, some of my hon. Friends will remind me of it. This Holyhead Grant is rather unlike the other two items. It is State property; the Government owns the harbour and the employés are State employés. The Montrose item is simply a revenue expense. They were unable to meet the interest on their loan, and they were assisted to that extent. The other item, which I would certainly say is no precedent whatever, because it is a war expenditure, is money spent at the request and on the recommendation of the Admiralty. I have heard from more than one speaker the, suggestion that there was some underlying reason why the North-East Coast, or-Sunderland, which is on the North-Eastern Railway, should be included. It was an expenditure incurred on the recommendation of the Admiralty. The money was given for two reasons; one was that the Wear was an important naval centre and the revenue was practically all gone. The portion of the assistance which is in this Vote is the balance of a total sum of £200,000 which the Treasury had already authorised, and it was simply pursuing the policy of the Board of Trade in enabling the Wear to keep this port open.

I do not quite understand what has happened. If this was a war ex penditure and the Treasury had authorised an expenditure of £200,000, why do we require this Supplementary Estimate now?

The reason was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer desired to bring finance to the House as much as possible, and said that these items should come here and should no longer be borne on a Vote of Credit. The principle was sanctioned, but the money not passed. As to the point raised by another hon. Member, I shall certainly come here on any large questions of advances to harbour authorities. Such questions must come here in the ordinary way under the Transport Act. This is merely washing out the end of the War, and there is no intention of making a precedent of it at all. From now we get on to the regular procedure.

It seems to me as if the good nature of the right hon. Gentleman has been imposed upon. This expenditure apparently ought to have fallen on the Admiralty. I gather that the only ground for giving a Grant to the Wear Commissioners was that they incurred some expenditure that was necessary for carrying on the War. I do not know whether the Minister of Transport is going to be so generous to the rest of his colleagues as to take over the burden of any other war expenditure in. the harbours. If he is, I shall be a little surprised. As far as other harbours on the north-east coast are concerned—I had had some experience with them—I rather gathered that where the Admiralty interfered at all with the harbours or required work to be done for their purpose the Harbour Authorities put in a claim to the Defence of the Realm War Losses Commission. I would rather like to know why that course was not pursued on this account. Have other Commissioners made application for the payment of dues?

Question put, and agreed to.

I do not know whether any right hon. Friend will look at this Estimate in. connection with No. 18, which comes later. There is an item here which I confess I do not understand. I understand that it is a payment in respect of refund to traders who were compelled to send their traffic coastwise instead of by rail. There is an item for £19,200, dock congestion relief. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the footnote he will see in the first sentence a reference to expenses in connection with Government lorries lent to railway companies under the Traffic Emergency Dock Congestion Relief Scheme. There is an asterisk after the word "scheme." It is explained that receipts in connection with these services will be reclaimed by the railway companies in reduction of their claim for deficiency on net receipts.

I am going to deal with it all when I get the chance.

The difficulty is that the Chairman of Committees usually gets these Votes through very speedily, and, unless somebody intervenes, nothing is said.

This Vote is under two heads. There is a sum of £1,100,000 for refunds to traders and a second sum of £19,200 against which there is a set-off of £9,000 for dock congestion relief. This is the first time that the Committee has been asked to give a Vote for money in respect of these services, though the fact of the establishment of the services has been brought to the notice of the House on numerous occasions, particularly at Question-time. What has led up to this request being made may be very shortly stated. The coastwise trade is one of the essential forms of transport and one of the best means of relieving the congestion at ports and assisting the railways. But unfortunately there has been a very great decline in the volume of traffic carried by coastal steamers. In 1913 approximately 35,000,000 tons of traffic were so carried. In 1918 that had fallen to 17,000,000 tons, a decrease of 52 per cent. Dealing with the present year on an estimate based on the first ten months it is believed that that will not increase to a greater extent than 4,000,000 tons, making 21,000,000 tons, as against the pre-war 35,000,000 tons, or a decrease of 40 per cent. The effects of this are both direct and indirect. Directly they interfere with the course of trade and industry in the coastal and coastwise towns. Indirectly they are of the factors making for difficulty of traffic problems on the railways. In July of this year the War Cabinet decided that special steps should be taken to try and bring back the coastwise service to a state of efficiency, and in August a scheme was introduced for the purpose. Very briefly, the scheme is this, that traffic which can be carried by boat is encouraged to use that form of transit. Most of the coastal rates are higher than the railway rates, as rail-day rates are by virtue of the agreement made when control was taken, and are charged at present to a greater or less extent upon the public purse, and many persons are now sending goods by rail which normally and ordinarily would go by sea. Under those circumstances it was determined through the good offices of port committees to try and secure a maximum amount of use of coastwise traffic, and the amount which is due is disbursed by the railway companies. It is hoped that that state of things may not exist for any prolonged period. The real remedy will be the adjustment of railway freightage rates. Under Section 21 of the Transport Act, the Minister is empowered to set up, which he did as promptly as he could, a Railway Rates Committee. That Committee has been working with great diligence and assiduity, and it is hoped that their report will be available at a very early date, and that it may then be possible for the Minister to take such steps as may result in the necessary adjustment of freightage rates. During the fifteen weeks to the 6th of December the tonnage carried by sea entitled to a subsidy was 450,000 tons, and the refunds varied from 16s. to 20s. per ton, showing how important it was that something should be done in this matter when you bear in mind that in order to reconcile railway rates and coastwise rates it was necessary to make so large tonnage payments. The amount involved was £430,000. The best estimate which can be formed of the sixteen weeks to the end of the financial year is that there will be 166,000 tons, making a total of £670,000, and the sum in the Vote of £1,100,000. The other matter to which the hon. Member for East Edinburgh called attention is with reference to dock congestion relief. It was determined after the railway strike that the lorries which were Government property and which had been in the hands of the Ministry of Munitions should be availed of to the fullest extent to try and relieve the congestion of the docks. The plan adopted was to let them to local haulage contractors at the general rate prevailing. The sum estimated as cost is £19,200, and there is an anticipated revenue from the haulers of £9,000, so that the Vote is £10,200. My hon. Friend asked why this is not dealt with under the Railway Agreement Clause, but it was thought to be more appropriate to do it in this way

We are much obliged for the statement of the hon. Gentleman, but it is worth noting that this matter of coastal transport was not tackled until July of this year, and surely it must have been obvious to anyone who thought about these things long before-that. We all know the causes of the decline of coastal traffic during the War. I am sure the Minister of Transport will be the first to agree, in spite of his personal love of railway traffic, that the decline of British coastal traffic is very undesirable. First of all, it relieves the block on the railways, and secondly, the seamen employed on that traffic are a potential reserve for the Navy. Although the block existed on the railway, hampering trade and delaying building, no steps apparently were taken until July, when it must have been evident long before the Armistice that something would be required to be done as soon as possible.

The, hon. and gallant Gentleman forgets that during the period he refers to the seas were infested by mines which made the coastwise traffic impossible.

I am glad to say that by the Mine Sweeping service we have been able to get all our coasts swept of them. Really there was no reason at all because of mines why this traffic should not have been gone on with, and I do not think that since the Armistice many mines have been found in the channels. Might I have an assurance on this point: Is it intended to raise the railway freights to such an extent that it will be commercially attractive for coastwise traffic to be applied for without any subsidy at all? This affects the Constituency I represent, and many other hon. Members will be interested as well. Is that going to be a basic principle?

Before the Minister is entitled to come to any conclusion he must, under the Statute, await the advice of the Committee set up under the Statute. I think my hon. and gallant Friend will see that it would be improper to give any more definite answer than that until that advice has been tendered.

I cannot agree altogether, because this is a matter of high policy, and surely we can have an answer on that. Is it intended that the freights on the railways shall be economic freights, which is all we want, because then, water transport being cheaper than railway transport, coastal traffic will be able to look after itself? Finally, might I ask a question with regard to the motor lorries? It would be interesting to know if the right hon. Gentleman could tell us if he considers that these lorries will become a permanent feature, and, if so, is it intended that they shall go on being Government property or that the matter shall be left to private enterprise? I particularly ask that because an important question has arisen at several of the ports, namely, that of accommodation for these lorries. For a fleet of lorries working at a port you want a large sheltered garage, and it would be very helpful to have the right hon. Gentleman's opinion as to whether he thinks this very valuable system of relieving the dock congestion will be permanent or not.

I think the point last raised by my hon. and gallant Friend has not been sufficiently referred to, namely, the use made of the motor lorries and how far this practice is going to be continued. Judging by the Estimate which is drawn, there is a loss of £10,000 on this particular transaction, and obviously the State cannot go on subsidising at a loss of that kind. It would be interesting to hear my right hon. Friend on that point, particularly in view of the stories we hear about the congestion of goods in the docks. I am not yet satisfied about this £19,200. I did not ask whether it could be dealt with better on the railway agreement yesterday, but I referred to the railway agreement yesterday, and the note placed on it dealing with the £19,100. The railway agreement deals with an estimated deficit for 1919–20 on the railways of £45,000,000, and in that sum are the expenses in connection with Government lorries lent to the railway companies. I take it that that is this item of £19,200, on which there is a loss of £10,000. I may be rather stupid, not being accustomed to double entry or figures which are involved. But is £9,000 not being counted twice over?

I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for making his point clear to me. The position indicated is this: there are accounts between the railway companies and the Government. The railway companies are carrying to the credit of the account any moneys they are receiving for this service. It is merely a question of accounts.

That is the £9,000!

Yes.

The £19,200 can be recovered in the cross-entry made between the railways and the Government. I wanted that to be made quite plain, because the explanatory notes at the bottom of the Estimates are not, in my view, detailed enough to make one understand those intricate figures, and you find this reference in this one, and in 18, which really ought to come before 18a. It is very easy for a large amount of money to slip through without the proper amount of criticism.

The hon. Gentleman opposite made use of a certain phrase, "goods entitled to receive subsidy." Could he tell us what special circumstances entitle goods to receive a subsidy? Is it at the discretion of the Ministry, or are they tabulated in such a form that traders know exactly what goods are entitled to receive subsidy or not, or is preference given to a certain class of trade and not another? How is it worked out?

I would like to reply to one or two points that have been raised. With regard to that put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry said, I could not say in advance what rates the Advisory Committee will advise, but, as the House will remember, the Government has the power of reviewing their advice. What I can tell the House is that, under the powers of the Ministry of Transport Act, the Minister can refer to the Rates Advisory Committee the problem how to obtain so much additional revenue by organisation of the rates, reduction of service, and so on, and the line on which the Government has proceeded is merely to put railways on an economic basis from the railway point of view—that is to say, to make them no longer show a deficit in their working and in the guarantee, but not, on the whole, to provide for the penalising of the railway user to the advantage of the steamship owner who works a coastal service. That is to say, the ground, as a whole, on which the Government has asked the Rates Advisory Committee to advise, is to put railways on an economic basis and allow competition on land and sea to go on with a non-subsidised service competing.

The first point that was raised was as to which goods were entitled to subsidy. This was an arrangement come to, as the House will remember, before the responsibility passed to the Ministry of Transport. The problem which confronted the Department that dealt with it was that there was a limited amount of coastal shipping available. It was desirable not to give a subsidy out of the taxpayers' pockets to goods which, anyhow, had to go by water—goods, for example that had to go to the waterside or to waterside premises. The course adopted as a temporary expedient—and it is only temporary, and we are going to get out of it as soon as possible—was that these allowances should be made after the railway had shown it was unable to carry the traffic which was either imported or exported to and from a port. The traffic actually between two ports was not to be included because of the difficulties I have mentioned. That is broadly what is intended by the goods entitled to subsidy. It was an expedient to get over a temporary state of affairs which, I hope, will shortly be got over in another and more logical way.

As to the lorries at; the ports—this was action taken, as the House will recollect, immediately at the close of the railway strike. The ports were congested more so than even they are now. As these lorries were all over the country it was considered it would be a wise and prudent thing to put them on to try and make up, at any rate, some of the arrears at the ports. They were sent to certain ports. They were a scratch lot of lorries. They had come over from France. Many of them had not been properly repaired. They were of a nondescript character. They were sent down to the ports, but their working has been, I frankly confess, disappointing. The experiment, I think, was justified by the exceptional circumstances of the time, but I have given in structions that, with the exception of Liverpool and Manchester—where they are doing better and more nearly justify themselves—although by no means wholly —with these exceptions, they are to be withdrawn. They are really not justifying their existence now. As to the question of a permanent lorry fleet to clear the ports, I have certainly no intention of starting any such service to be run directly by the State. If, when the organisation gets into the former peace time working, the railways find it a convenient and economic way to deal with traffic, instead of carrying it all by rail, no doubt they will supply the lorries. But the Ministry of Transport has no intention of embarking upon lorry fleets at the ports in order to carry goods about the streets.

Question put, and agreed to.

Some useful information has been given so far in this discussion, and I would, therefore, wish to ask for further information on this Vote. Is there any particular reason why these particular canals have been picked out? On that point possibly the right hon. Gentleman will enlighten not only myself but the Scottish Members. I am speaking from memory, but I believe a very excellent report has been presented by the Canal Committee in which they recommend, or say, it is necessary to spend, I think, about £60,000,000 to put the canals into proper working order. Is this matter under consideration? Is it proposed under the schemes of reconstruction that are being carried out to take the canal problem in hand wholeheartedly? Is it intended to enlarge the Caledonian Canal? I would also like to ask if the Government are considering pressing on with the great scheme of the Forth of Clyde Canal?

I do not find anything in this Vote to justify I he raising of that question, which seems to be quite a separate matter.

This Vote represents increases on the Board of Trade Estimates which were presented to the Committee earlier in the year. The amount asked for has now been increased to £280,000, the increase being caused by the alteration in the wages and labour conditions which have become general throughout the land, and they apply to the canal. I can, if it is thought desirable, give greater details, but perhaps I should be consulting the convenience of the Committee if I did not go into them at the moment. The Crinan and Caledonian Canal is Crown property administered by a statutory body or which Mr. Speaker is the Chairman, and the sums asked for are necessary to meet the actual expenditure.

Question put, and agreed to.

I think it necessary that I should say a few words in explaining this matter to the Committee. I know it is a matter of opinion as to whether it is necessary to introduce this as a financial question, but my right hon. Friend desires that every question that could be raised should be brought to the notice of the House. This item is nothing more nor less than one of accountancy between the two Government Departments. The Ministry of Munitions holds for disposal 1,000 lorries, 350 locomotives, and 11,000 railway wagons. It is obvious that those ought to be distributed through the agency of the railway companies. At present the Government are controlling the railways, and the Ministry of Munitions requires to be paid £5,320,000 for this rolling stock, which will come into the charge of the Ministry of Transport, and during the period of control of the railways it will be lent by this Ministry to the controlled railway companies on terms to be settled by the Treasury. I cannot think that there will be any difficulty on that account, because the railway accounts are now Government accounts, and that matter also becomes largely one of book-keeping, although it is important to have the entry as close as may be to the facts, lest the account should appear fictitious When the period of control ends and the railway companies resume their normal working, these items will then have to be debited to the railway companies upon proper terms. In other words, we are asking the Committee to sanction the transaction, and in the meantime we are trustees for the disposal of these items when the proper time comes. It is not expected, as will be seen by the fact that we are asking for only £10, that this will impose any additional charge upon the taxpayer, the fact being that we hope to be within the original Estimate which has been granted to us by the House.

It is quite true, as my hon. Friend remarks, that we are asked for only £10, but, if hon. Members will look at this Supplementary Estimate, they will find that that £10 is arrived at in a very curious way. The original estimate of the railway agreement was £60,000,000. It is now revised to £64,000,000 some odd hundred thousands, with the result that £5,000,000 is required. The difference between that and the revised estimate for the rolling stock gives a sum of £10, but, obviously that is based on the assumption that the deficiency on railway working is estimated at £45,000,000. I turn to Command Paper 402, which is referred to. The last paragraph of that paper, issued by my right hon. Friend on 31st October, 1919, deals with this deficiency of £45,000,000, and these words occur:

"Any improvement in the position is mainly due (i.) to the extraordinary increase in passenger traffic last summer, and (ii.) to the decision to apply, from 1st April, 1919, to Government traffic the same rates of increase as has been, made to the public. The latter results in a credit to the railway account of about £5,000,000, but this credit involves a corresponding charge to other Government Departments. It should be added that the present estimate of £45,000,000 as the amount of the deficit may prove to be inadequate (i.) if the drop from the summer level of passenger receipts is more marked than usual, as may well he the case in view of the unprecedented height attained, and (ii.) as a result of the dislocation of business by labour troubles on the other hand, no allowance is made for any growth of revenue from increases in goods rates which may become operative before the close of the financial year."

The railway strike meant a, loss of some £5,000,000, and, if you take that as one item, then this original figure of. £45,000,000 cannot be correct. Therefore, to make this deduction that is made above in paragraph (a) seems to be unfair if you take the £45,000,000 as a fixed sum. I would like to know whether those paragraphs which the right hon. Gentleman wrote affect this figure of £45,000,000. I daresay that some book-keeping arrangement, such as is suggested, can be made even to accommodate the varying circumstances since then. I should like to know whether this paragraph holds good now, and whether we can take that as a fixed figure.

I purposely avoided entering, or inviting the Committee to enter into, a general discussion upon the whole question of railway finance in connection with an item which is a question of accountancy between two Departments. In answer to my hon. Friend's question, I would say that the Department is advised that the figure which he mentioned is likely to prove to be substantially accurate, and that is so much so that we need not disturb the figures which are put before the Committee in this White Paper.

I should like to ask one question about paragraphs (b) and (a). I do not quite understand why the Government has formed this pool of rolling stock.

It is war stock.

The Ministry of Munitions have this stock to sell, and are busy selling it, and I do not quite understand why the Ministry of Transport has come in between.

We are the railway companies for the moment.

I quite agree, but I want to point out the difficulty which I think may arise. The railway companies have their own stock, and the Government is getting its own stock, which will go into the service of the railway companies, who, I understand, make up the account. I take it that the whole of the railway companies' accounts will not be made up by the Ministry of Transport. It appears to me that the Ministry of Transport will have to charge rent to the railways for the use of this stock, in order to enable the accounts to be made up properly. It seems to me that it would have been very much simpler if the railway companies had simply bought this stock over and taken it into their own stock. That would have relieved us from the necessity of these cross transactions, and I should like to know why it was not done. With regard to the larger question of railway agreements I do not propose to open that up at any length, but we find, happily, that the Estimate has gone down from £100,000,000 to £60,000,000, and now we learn that this year it is to be £45,000,000. I think that is a gratifying progress of diminution, and one hopes that before long it may disappear under the energetic administration of the Minister of Transport. Tracing the matter back from this Command Paper 224, through Command Paper 402, back to Command Paper 147, which was brought before the Committee on Estimates earlier in the year; I gather that, in addition to the figure of £45,000,000, which is put down as a deficit, there is a kind of floating deficit which it is not possible to allocate to any year. For instance, Command Paper 147 states that the figures given there will show a profit to the Government of something like £24,000,000, but those figures do not take into account allowances for provision for wear and tear. Then there is a note (No. 7) which says that this extra wear and tear is estimated as likely to result in a figure of about £40,000,000. This is a figure which, I understand, has not been taken into account at all as yet in any of the figures that have been placed before the House, but is a figure we may have to face at some future time. It reappears, I think, in Command Paper 402, where it is pointed out that, up to the 31st March, 1919, there was a profit on the working of the railways which might be estimated at from £2,000,000 to £7,000,000, according as a certain figure for receipts was taken. It says, "For the period 5th August, 1914 31st March, 1919, the revenue earned from all sources exceeds the expenditure." That is to say, there is a profit, which is very satisfactory. That profit is £2,000,000 or £7,000,000, according to the value put upon certain services rendered to the Government. If they are valued at £10,000,000 the profit is £2,000,000, and if they are valued at £15,000,000 the profit is £7,000,000. The Paper says:

"There are, however, to be set against this margin serious deferred liabilities in respect of replacing stores of materials, arrears of maintenance, and abnormal wear and tear."

The earlier Paper estimates this liability at £40,000,000. The point I want to make is that the figure at present put before us, showing a deficit on this year of £45,000,000, does not take into account these deferred liabilities, which may amount to a considerable sum, so that the rate of diminution is not quite so satisfactory or such a firm figure. When the final settlement comes—I do not know whether that will be at the end of period of possession under the Ministry of Transport—there will have to be taken into account these deferred liabilities, and so far as we have any estimates before us we may be faced then with a further deficit of at least £40,000,000. The whole thing is rather involved, and one has to follow it through from one Paper to another, and I thought that this would be a good opportunity to obtain a statement from the right hon. Gentleman as to whether the statements I have made represent the position.

There is a question of payment for locomotives. I have asked questions on this subject, and I understand there are some 154 engines. I am unable to find out what price has been paid to the Ministry of Munitions for those locomotives, which were being distributed by the Ministry of Transport. Can the right hon. Gentleman say what price has been paid to the. Ministry of Munitions for those engines which have been allocated or whether payment is being withheld and the engines are being lent, and, if so, on what terms?

With regard to the pool of wagons, those wagons were built or acquired during the life of the Ministry of Munitions and were run upon the railways very much upon the same lines as privately-owned wagons are run upon the railways to-day and have been ever since railways began in this country. They were the private property of the Ministry of Munitions on Government account. When the Ministry of Transport came into being those wagons were continued, in the hands of the Ministry of Munitions. In the ordinary process of winding up its business and sorting out what should go to this Department and what should go to that, the question of the final disposal of these wagons arose. It was, therefore, proposed that, as the private wagon-owners' situation under the Ministry of Transport Act was being reviewed, it would be better and more in keeping with sound organisation to transfer these wagons, which were under the individual control of the Ministry of Munitions, and throw them into the general pool of railway wagons for general use, as very good use could be made of them, and the need of the Ministry of Munitions for them was being reduced. It is true that instead of transferring this State property from the entrenchment of one Department to that of a more appropriate Department they could have been sold out and out to the railway companies. The terms upon which the railway companies have got them at present—that is only account keeping—is that the railway side is debited with interest and a percentage for renewals. The, running repairs are done and charged to the working expenses, so that as long as they are working for the railways in the general position of railway wagons and allocated where they are now, and as long as the railways are controlled it is merely a question of book-keeping. When the whole question of wagons is decided undoubtedly these ought to be dealt with on those lines. It would be very bad policy to keep a small quantity of wagons like this in the Government's hands with some contract arrangement for their repair, and so far as this particular entry in the Supplementary Estimates is concerned it is merely a book entry between the two Departments. The Ministry of Transport will keep track of all the wagons now and deal with them eventually on whatever lines the House decides that we are to deal with the wagon situation.

As regards the locomotives, there are large locomotives for which contracts were placed during the War and which were delivered after the Armistice and did not go abroad. I think there are nearly 300. They are a heavy type of locomotive and they have been a great assistance in helping the railways, which are very much in arrears, largely due to the moulders' strike, with locomotive repairs. They are also being used by the railways on, practically speaking, the same lines as the wagons. They are being transferred from the Ministry of Munitions, which is winding up its outstanding business. We do not want to sell them. This is simply transferring them from one Department to another, and from now on the Ministry of Transport will have to look after them and eventually dispose of them. The same thing applies to the lorries. I think there are 1,365 lorries which have been left with what is, in fact, from the financial point of view the State Railway Department, because the State is responsible for the working expenses, and they have been left on the same terms and the Ministry of Munitions want to get them off their books. That is what is being done now. As to the question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Davies) as to the £40,000,000 and whether that would cause a deficit in another year, I think he is confusing the current expenditure of the year and the arrears of expenditure during the period of control prior to this year. The deferred maintenance and the extra hire and repair is an outstanding liability which undoubtedly has got to be met. It is in excess, but it is not an annual charge. It will not be a deficit on the working of the railways in the future. It is a sum which the State will have to meet, and undoubtedly it knocks out far more than the whole of the £2,000,000 to X7,000,000 of fictitious profit made during the period ending 31st March last. But it is not going to be a deficit on the working of the railways during any future year, except in so far as it is debited. At present I should think the railways are not only maintaining themselves to their proper standard, but are overtaking arrears of maintenance and renewal.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next.

Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (I, a), to insert the words

"and every attempted transfer, sub-division, or letting in contravention of this provision shall be void and on any such contravention the holding shall, at the option of the Land Commission, revert in the Land Commission."

This is really the result of an agreement between the hon. Member for East Donegal and myself in Committee. It is merely to safeguard the State against any attempt to transfer land by a soldier or sailor who has received a State allotment and to provide that if he attempts to transfer a holding which he has received from the State it should be forfeited to the Land Commission. It is obvious that it would be an absurdity to settle a soldier or sailor on the land and to learn the next day that he had sold file holding

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, after Sub-section (3), to insert the words

"(4) The power of acquiring held for the purposes of this Act shall not be exercised after the expiration of two years from the passing of this Act."

The general framework of this Bill follows the framework of the Evicted Tenant Court. The maximum amount which can be advanced is the same in each case, and in our discussions yesterday on the Committee stage the precedents which were afforded by the Evicted Tenants Act were frequently held up by the Government as a sort of model which might well be followed in the drafting of this Bill. This Bill falls into two halves. The first authorises the Land Commission to acquire land for the purpose of giving that land in the form of economic farms to soldiers, sailors, and members of the Air Force, and the second part authorises the Local Government Board to build labourers' cottages and to attach labourers' allotments to those cottages, and to give the cottages and allotments to the same classes of men. When we turn to the provisions of the Bill which regulate the operations of the Local Government Board, we find in Clause 4, Sub-section (4, d), that

"the power of acquiring land shall not be exercised by the Board after the expiration of three years from the passing of this Act."

Two years was considered by the Government sufficient in the original drafting of the Bill, but in deference to the views expressed by hon. Gentlemen representing Ulster Unionist constituencies the period was enlarged to three years. If those hon. Gentlemen think a period of three years is a reasonable period in which to allow soldiers and sailors to apply for the allotment of farms from the Estate Commissioners, 1 should be glad to meet them in that respect, and to substitute three years for the term of two years in my Amendment. My Amendment will impose upon the Estates Commissioners the same time limit that the Local Government Board have already confessed in the actual terms of this Bill to be sufficient for them. Secondly, it will follow the precedent of the Evicted Tenants Act. Two years which was considered a reasonable time for evicted tenants to apply for allotments on untenanted land to which they had any claims. Two years was found by the Estates Commissioners to be a very useful period, and afforded them a ready answer to applicants who might perhaps not be very desirable applicants for allotments of land. We find that in ordinary practice the best and bona-fide applicants will know about this Act and will apply promptly, and not wait five or six years. It is undesirable that these special and wholly exceptional powers should be conferred upon the Estates Commissioners without the House fixing a time limit for the exercise of those powers. If my Amendment or some modification if it is not accepted the result will be that the Estates Commissioners will have power for all time to acquire land and to give it to ex-soldiers and ex-sailors who have served in the recent War. It is not desirable that they should have these powers. Let us give them these powers for three years, and if the Estates Commissioners at, the expiration of that period can satisfy the House that it is necessary to continue those powers, let them do so.

Amendment not seconded.

I beg to move, in Subsection (2), to leave out the words "persons who appear to the Board to be owners, lessees or occupiers," and to insert instead thereof the words "owners or reputed owners, lessees or reputed lessees and occupiers."

This relates to classes of persons who are to be served with notices in the case of the acquisition of land. It was agreed that we should insert in addition to the word "owner" or "lessee" the word "reputed," which is a common form.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in Subsection (4), after the word "powers" ["all the powers"], to insert the words "except powers of borrowing or causing a rate to be levied."

The object of this Amendment is merely to deprive the Local Government Board of other powers which they might under this Clause be held to possess. The Local Government Board have certain powers of acquiring land, and it might be contended that under the Clause they had powers of borrowing or causing a rate to be levied.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert the words

"and to the domicile of the applicant so as to secure that applications from men who at the time of enlistment were not domiciled in Ireland shall not be considered."

This is an attempt to confine the allocation of Irish land under this Bill to men who have been born in Ireland and are familiar with the conditions of Irish agriculture, and therefore to the men for whom the provisions of this Act are intended. I would remind the House that the supply of land in Ireland is far short of the demands of applicants. Land for distribution under the Land Purchase Acts is very scarce, and it is most undesirable that applications for land under the provisions of this Act should be extended to applicants from England and Scotland. If it is desired that those classes of applicants should be provided with land, they should be provided with land in England or Scotland in some Bill similar to the Bill now before the House.

Amendment not seconded.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—[Mr. Henry.]

We are rather under a disadvantage in discussing this Bill, and for two reasons. We spent several hours on it in Committee yesterday, when valuable explanations were given by the Minister in charge. I think it is very hard that, owing to the fact that the Committee's proceedings were not reported, we are left absolutely without any record of what took place during the several hours. Hon. Members who attended the Committee will remember that there were many valuable explanations and commentaries given on the provisions of the Bill and on the manner in which it would be worked by the learned Attorney-General for Ireland. Those are lost to us. One effect of that will be that the Departments which have to administer this Bill will be deprived of the guidance they otherwise might have. The second disadvantage is that it was only yesterday we finished the Committee stage of this Bill, and here within twenty-four hours we have come to the final stage of the Bill, having had very little time to consider Amendments. There was one explanation which the learned Attorney-General was good enough to give us yesterday, and that was with regard to the future operations of Clause 1, Sub-section (3) paragraph (c). It will he within the recollection of the Attorney-General that we had a considerable discussion of that Clause, and that he pointed out with great detail the various classes of land to which that paragraph could possibly apply. He explained to us that it could not apply to land which had been purchased and was subject to an annuity payable to the Irish Land Commission; secondly, that it could not apply to the ordinary tenancies from year to year: and, thirdly, that it could not apply to leaseholds of the same class as the two former classes of land. It would be of assistance to the Departments concerned, and a valuable record, if the learned Attorney-General would now give us some explanation as to that point.

I hare great pleasure in reassuring my hon. and learned Friend on the points he has raised. The object of the Bill is to provide for soldiers and sailors who have, served in. the War, and the method is to utilise the existing powers of the Land Commission for the purpose of acquiring land and then to distribute it amongst sailors and soldiers. I gather that my hon. and learned Friend is under some fear that holdings of tenants who are judicial tenants, or present tenants, or tenants who have bought out under the Land Act and are paying annuities to the Government, may be compulsorily taken. Not merely is it not the intention of the Government that that class of tenant should be dispossessed, but it is quite outside the powers of the Bill. The Land Commission gets substantially no new powers under this Bill. They are expressly forbidden to acquire compulsorily any holding which has been bought out.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.